[megous]

This website is now like 30% about this probability based autocomplete nonsense. Feels like all those bitcoin hypes and "running everything on blockchain" fad of few years ago. Now it's running everything through "large autocomplete" model.

I really hope this will fade and focus will turn back to highlighting some broader actual human ingenuity in IT, rather than constant stream of "we used autocomplete for this new thing" or "we build this new API for this glorified autocomplete".

Boring.

[chaxor]

"old man yells at cloud"

Seriously though, it's not going away no matter how much anyone hates it. Emails and blogs will continue to be written with it, letters of recommendation will be/are written with it, Presidential speeches will be written with it, academic articles will be / are written with it (almost all ml and cs research is), news is written with it... It's not going to stop, but it will _probably_/_very likely_ get better.

There is no tool, no human, no method to determine if text is generated with one of these models at high F-score (only sometimes high precision, low recall domains for silly examples).

We're stuck with it. Like the English teacher and their despised spell check.

[romanhn]

It occurs to me that over time, reading comprehension will become significantly more important than the ability to write. Anyone will be able to write something smart-sounding with AI's help, but it'll take real skill to make sure the output is correct and appropriate.

[XCSme]

I just added this "autocomplete" in my app, and customers emailed to say they actually love it: https://docs.uxwizz.com/guides/ask-ai-new

[megous]

Yes, customers will love anything that helps them. You can get customers to love you by adding any kind of automation for stuff they had to do by hand up to that point. Does this mean there should be 10 articles per day shared about "I added XLSX import to my app, so my customers don't have to do data entry via dialogs"?

My point is about repetitiveness of LLM topics. Not about usefullness of LLM itself. And LLMs are glorified autocomplete. Their internals are maybe interesting, but that's often not what's being discussed here or even written about in the shared articles.

[kfajdsl]

I've gotten so used to having an LLM integrated into my editor that when I work on the occasional spreadsheet (or really anything with syntax that I only use occasionally and no integrated AI) it's pretty jarring to have to go to another tab to look up what function to use for a formula (even if that other tab is ChatGPT).

[ametrau]

Nah it's got legs as a google replacement / competitor if they keep costs lower and take a smaller rent. WHEN they start advertising they'll explode. Which is why google is trying to snuff them out in the cradle (sorry about the visual).

[xcv123]

If deep learning algorithms are "autocomplete" then so is the human mind when it strings words together. No, that's not how it works.

[dns_snek]

[citation needed]

Just because that makes for a nice narrative in the copyright infringement argument, doesn't make it so.

We know next to nothing about how the human brain works.

[xcv123]

Citation: Decades of research in artificial neural networks

Here's a paper from 1990 by the Godfather himself https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/AIJmapping.pdf

"This 1990 paper demonstrated how neural networks could learn to represent and reason about part-whole hierarchical relationships, using family trees as the example domain.

By training on examples of family relations like parent-child and grandparent-grandchild, the neural network was able to capture the underlying logical patterns and reason about new family tree instances not seen during training.

This seminal work highlighted that neural networks can go beyond just memorizing training examples, and instead learn abstract representations that enable reasoning and generalization"

> We know next to nothing about how the human brain works

We understand how parts of it work.