[fzeroracer]

> It just repeats patterns

> It is just a glorified probabilistic text generator.

> It is just a “stochastic parrot”.

> It “hallucinates”.

> It is not “intelligent” the way humans are.

> It does not actually “think” like humans.

> It will never get human qualities like humour.[4]

> It is snake oil and is no different from any other technology that has come before.

> If it causes job losses, new jobs will emerge, like with all previous technological revolutions.

The OP cites all of these as 'moving goalposts' but I'm not sure how, given that they're all true? Like all of the hype I see around LLMs is all the same hype I saw around from Bitcoin. It's by people that haven't used it in a professional environment, with no clue about the actual flaws, limitations or issues. And companies are intent on selling you a solution in search of a problem because they want to create aa product hype cycle.

It feels different because you've bitten onto the bait. Personally given the code output and so forth I've seen from LLMs I'd highly doubt the experience of any software engineer that uses it in their day to day life.

[ukuina]

Some (many?) of those statements have been empirically proven false, like understanding humor. Multi-modal LLMs can explain why certain images are funny, for example.

[fzeroracer]

It does not understand humor. LLMs respond affirmatively to whatever input you give it and use the elements of whatever you feed it to try and explain. That's the core mistake the article makes and why that specific point is wrong. Let me demonstrate.

I asked the LLM the following prompt: Can you explain why the joke "Where's the joke?" is funny?

The response: "The humor in the joke "Where's the joke?" is derived from its meta or self-referential nature. The joke plays with the expectation of a traditional joke setup and punchline structure. Typically, when someone tells a joke, there is an expected punchline that delivers the humor. However, in this case, the punchline is intentionally missing, and instead, the question "Where's the joke?" is posed."

All it's doing is the same thing when you ask it to summarize a piece of data. This isn't a joke or meant to be a joke, but by telling it to explain it as a joke/meme will cause the output to differ in and regurgitate a bunch of nonsense about humor. This isn't understanding humor.

[ThrowawayTestr]

> It's by people that haven't used it in a professional environment

Samsung had to tell it's engineers to stop using chatgpt because it was leaking secrets.

[stevenhuang]

When someone compares LLMs to crypto you know they've lost the plot.

[fzeroracer]

Tell you what, I'll go ahead and favorite this response and see what happens in about two years. By then I have a feeling I'll be vindicated and companies will have moved into the next Big Thing. Much like every other radical revolution that's been claimed in the past 10 years (Crypto, NFTs, Metaverse etc).

[stevenhuang]

Lol. That you're unironically lumping LLMs in the same category as all that is chef's kiss.

Consider that your BS barometer needs a good recalibration, I'll just leave it at that.