[yieldcrv]

Thats just not my experience

I’m using Miqu 70B Q4 and it immediately replaced Mixstral 8x7B Q5 for me

I screen almost all of my responses in relationships through it, with deep context on why its modifying things, total paradigm shifts like a therapist is showing me more effective conversation styles. I wasn't seen as having low emotional intelligence to begin with and the results have been great.

Translations

Coding syntax

Entire code bases

Nuanced legal aspects of industries (deep conversations about obscure drug and treatment pricing by region and billing method, which matched reality)

More stuff about different kinds of insurance and how to navigate insurance brokers, to great effect

Whenever a contractor or professional outside of my knowledge domain gives me a word salad, I make a note of what they said verbatim and have the LLM translate that for me. Then I come back to them with informed responses they cant bullshit around. I got my HVAC fixed by pointing out what they are probably missing, and they were previously too prideful to notice or consider or admit. Got a payment coming from my landlord for this because they caused my energy bill to be higher.

Large document analyses, which I thought was the final boss. I’m only giving these things an 8,000 token context window and things have been great and coherent

[okamiueru]

How does it compare to ChatGPT 4? That's the only thing I've "vetted". It'll be subtly wrong about something, and if I point it out, I'll be "of course you are right!".

And, if you are wrong about what you said it was wrong about, it'll still almost always say how right you are.

[yieldcrv]

for my use cases they are very close to ChatGPT4 and I primarily use GPT4 for multimodal prompts and responses. synchronous voice conversations, Dalle3 images, uploading images to it.

they all lean to be agreeable out the box, but the aforementioned two will stick to their guns harder and tell you that you're wrong. you have to ask all of them to take the other side for more insight.

with ChatGPT4, for example, I posted a conversation where I felt that a woman I was dating gave a response to my followup that was way negative and way out of left field. It told me she had a disproportionally negative response to a benign text. Then in another session I posted my post and told it to predict her response, and it predicted a variety of responses some of which were like the woman's and this time it told me why. This means it was being too agreeable and affirming my feelings the first time, unprompted, while actually giving insight in the second session without knowing there was an existing reaction to navigate.

(Analogous to how we have to patch our speech to never blame the victim even though we know there are measures they could have taken to mitigate that scenario. While if the same person asks in advance we would give them advice.)

Dumbfounded that its predictive qualities were better than its affirmation-by-default trait, I told it to act like the woman's friends who have no context of me if they saw my message, I told it to act like redditors on /r/relationship_advice responding to the woman who similarly have no context beyond what OP feels. you have to create outside observers, and you can run all of these alternate realities within 3 minutes. It will begin crafting responses that break the conversation molds you might be more familiar with and get better results, but if all that sounds too much, you can simply tell it to disagree with you.

in LM Studio you can modify the system prompt and change the temperament

[okamiueru]

I appreciate your responses. It seems to me that your uses are to a much larger degree interpretative and also somewhat creative.

LLMs are great here. My concerns are mostly that its ability for factual accuracy is confused with its own expressed confidence. Assessment of one's owns abilities is usually optimistic in humans. LLMs just model that language. Facts are baked in as linguistic patterns, rather than a knowledge machine. And, you can often invert its answer to a scary degree.

There was recently an article on Forbes, where the journalistic "source" was the output of Bard.

The most terrifying part about LLMs to me, is not that it's sometimes wrong. But that it's often enough right and excels at certain stuff, that we use it as a source of knowledge. It really isn't.

On the other hand, the creative part, or dialogues regarding creative processes. It's mind bogglingly amazing.