[pjc50]

> data transformers that can transform raw data without coding at all

How do you know this is 100% reliable, per upthread discussion?

We've already had this problem with Excel in various sciences, which while deterministic has all sorts of surprising behaviors. Genes had to be renamed in order to stop Excel from mangling them: https://www.progress.org.uk/human-genes-renamed-as-microsoft...

AI promises "easier than Excel, but not deterministic". So more people are going to use it to get less reliable results.

[debatem1]

Weird argument. Excel is one of the most popular and profitable programs of all time. If your argument is that LLMs are like Excel, the logical conclusion would be that they would be wildly successful.

[pjc50]

Quite possibly. But not 100% reliable.

[Idiot_in_Vain]

And humans are of course 100% reliable...

[debatem1]

CPUs too. And RAM, no way that goes wrong. Hey, hard disks are infallible right?

Yeah, nothing is 100%, and if it were nothing could prove it was.

[basch]

Isn’t it deterministic with the temperature turned down? You can control when it gives a precise vs fuzzy answer.

[basch]

I didn’t say “LLMs solve all problems” or “there will be no place anywhere for code anymore.”

[cmcconomy]

okay - how do you distinguish between scenarios where it's appropriate and where it's dangerous?

[Footkerchief]

There are two contexts in my experience where it's been important to get the numbers exactly right:

1. Cherrypicking sports statistics for newly set records and the like (NB: this is not lucrative)

2. Financial transaction processing

In most other contexts, especially analytics and reporting, nobody cares and nobody is going to check your math, because the consumers are just trying to put a veneer of numeracy on their instincts.