[f6v]

> Half the people took him credulously.

I get that the current US president is senile. But that sets a low bar. Why do we need to pretend something is good if it’s as shitty at facts as some people? People want something that’s better and more trustworthy.

[kilgnad]

A low bar? You're saying if someone recreates an AI that imitates biden or trump perfectly that we failed to do anything impressive?

Talk about self denial. chatGPT literally passed the turing test and people are still literally just thinking it's just a probability word generator.

It's more then just a word generator.

[f6v]

I went to Twitter and read what ML scientists say. They don’t think it’s anything like a layperson imagines it to be(I’m also a layman when it comes to LLMs). But it’s an impressive technology IMO. I just think we don’t know all the limitations and strength yet because there’s a vocal majority that suffers from survivorship bias.

[kilgnad]

They're just telling you how LLMs work. Anyone can understand the underlying algorithm with a bit of study. It's trivial.

Nobody is understanding the high level emergent effects of LLMs plus training. What the ML scientists say has as much credibility as a lay person in this regard.

[poutine]

You think ChatGPT isn't good because it bullshits some times?

[f6v]

I think it’s a wrong question to ask. It’s an impressive piece of technology for which people are trying to find use cases. But the right questions are: 1. What are the tasks where LLMs out-perform humans, or, at least deliver similar performance? 2. Are LLMs more efficient in these tasks?

[mrtranscendence]

I'd rather a senile president than sub-100 IQ megalomaniacal sociopath, but YMMV.