Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
923
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • They all "lie" because they don't actually know a damn thing. Everything an LLM outputs is just a guess of what a human might do.

  • Except for "diagnose these symptoms", with proper framework around it (only using it for flagging things, not for actually making decisions, things that have been discussed thousands of times) that's a valid task for them.

    This sounds like someone who knows nothing about construction saying "building a house" is a valid task because they don't understand why using a hammer to drive in a screw would be incorrect or why it's even a problem. "The results are good enough right?"

  • And I give it less then a year before the "oh shit, we really should have human's overseeing this" hits

  • So in the composite object of “LLM” what is the tool and what is the task?

    The tool is "Language Learning Model" and the task is "Learn language and mimic human speech."

    The task is not "Provide accurate information" or "write code" or "provide legal advice" or "Diagnose these symptoms" or "provide customer service" or "manage a database".

  • Lemmy is filled to the brim with llm haters but you're not only a minority, you're probably also closing doors on the future trajectory of tech in business.

    "Think of the shareholder value of firing all these people!"

    Also, I call bullshit. I've seen many cases of companies replacing their staff with AI, then a month later desperately trying to hire staff again because the AI is good at "looking like* it can do the job but once in use turns out it's complete shit.

  • I agree anyone using an LLM is a bad craftsman, because they're using a hammer to drive in a screw.

  • Only people who know very little about a field feel like AI "is good enough" for that field. Experts in a field will universally say that AI is shit in their field.

    LLMs are the extreme example of "the dumb man's idea of a smart man." It sounds like it knows what it's talking about so people ignorant on the subject don't know it's full of shit.

  • Because whatever you think is in them, whatever you think we already know, it's significantly worse.

  • The Good Place. Funny, compelling, I cried through the final episode. It also doesn't waste your time, things will happen mid-season that any other show would have dragged out for the season finale.

  • Make sure you stay in your designated out of the way corner and clean up after yourselves so that people don't even know you were there!

  • As a trans ally, your post was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. As I have never heard someone complain about "you" before, I provided the opportunity to explain why it might be problematic. If you were sincere and not using this as a method to mock trans people you would have taken the opportunity to explain why "you" is problematic. Instead, you took a paragraph to state you did not like "Thank you" but refused to elaborate any further when asked.

  • There's a problem with "you"?

  • Not just sports. Children's sports. Who's the fuck cares, just let the kids play.

  • My reaction to the article:

    This was about fears AI will tank the economy? No shit it will.

    Reads a little more

    Wait, this is about fears AI will be so successful it tanks the economy? Complete bullshit but hey, whatever gets this bubble popped.

    Instead of using DoorDash, developers – and civilians – code up their own food delivery apps, all of which compete, fragment the market, and destroy the margins of legacy businesses.

    Complete fucking fantasy. Even if AI was so amazing it could code my own delivery app for me in seconds, the food still has to be delivered somehow. But yes, it AI was able to deliver on all of the promises we'd be fucked, when AI fails to deliver on all of the promises the bubble will burst and we'll be fucked. Either way stop investing in AI.

  • Good talk, great contribution.

  • You said this puzzle "wasn't tricky in the slightest" and yet that "it requires understanding what is being asked."

    Correct. Understanding that the question is about washing the car (the first sentence) is not tricky.

    So only 71.5% of humans can accomplish this "not tricky in the slightest" problem

    30% of people are fucking idiots. This keeps being proven. My argument is in no way changed by this fact.

    Is "understanding" things not "tricky"?

    No. Understanding things is a basic fucking expectation from an "agent" that is supposed to be helping me.

  • And a substantial number of models are able to accomplish it

    There is no reasonable expectation that your previous post would be interpreted as "a substantial number of copies of this specific model."

    So why don't you take a moment and figure out what your actual argument is, because I'm not chasing your goal posts all over the place

  • My answer to this question will not change if you ask me a year from now, because as OP said this is not a matter of opinion; there is a factually correct answer.