[niobe]

> There is SO MUCH we haven't figured out about how to use them yet.

I mean, it's pretty clear to me they're a potentially great human-machine interface, but trying to make LLMs - in their current fundamental form - a reliable computational tool.. well, at best it's an expensive hack, but it's just not the right tool for the job.

I expect the next leap forward will require some orthogonal discovery and lead to a different kind of tool. But perhaps we'll continue to use LLMs as we knownthem now for what they're good at - language.

[simonw]

One of the biggest challenges in learning how to use and build on LLMs is figuring out how to work productively with a technology that - unlike most computers - is inherently unreliable and non-deterministic.

It's possible, but it's not at all obvious and requires a slightly skewed way of looking at them.

[XenophileJKO]

This really reminds me of a trend years ago to create probabilistic programming constructs. I think it was just a trend way ahead of its time. Typical software engineers tend to be very ill-suited to think in probabilities and how to build reasonably reliable systems around them.