| There's this odd strain of thought that there's some general thing that will pop for hucksters and the unwashed masses, who are sheep led along by huckster wolves who won't admit LLMs aint ???, because they're profiting off it It's frustrating because it's infantalizing, it derails the potential of an interesting technical discussion (ex. Here, diffusion), and it misses the mark substantially. At the end of the day, it's useful in a thousand ways day to day, and the vast majority of people feel this way. The only people I see vehemently arguing the opposite seem to assume only things with 0 error rate are useful or are upset about money in some form. But is that really it? I'm all ears. I'm on a 5 hour flight. I'm genuinely unclear on whats going on that leads people to take this absolutist position that they're waiting for ??? to admit ??? about LLMs. Yes, the prose machine didnt nail circuit design, that doesn't mean whatever They you're imagining needs to give up and accept ??? |
Irony: humans think in very black-and-white terms, one could even say boolean; conversely LLMs display subtly and nuance.
When I was a kid, repeats of Trek had Spock and Kirk defeating robots with the liar's paradox, yet today it seems like humans are the ones who are broken by it while the machines are just going "I understood that reference!"