|
|
|
|
|
by taberiand
501 days ago
|
|
The llm is able to see the gorilla when shown the image in the same way you would show a human an image. Imagine if you gave someone the raw data and told them to write code to graph the output but on to a screen they couldn't see. They would not be able to tell you it's a gorilla until you turn the monitor around and show them. Humans are still better at seeing the image, sure (for now), but the llm is a tool with certain features and abilities. You can't make up a scenario that is misusing the tool and then pretend that it doesn't work - especially when it seems you want it to use it without applying your own brain power to the process And to be clear, I'm open to criticism of llms and exploration of their limitations - but I'm tired of hearing complaints that amount to PEBKAC. |
|
> misusing the tool and then pretend that it doesn't work
It was told to analyze and then it did a bad job of analyzing. I don't care if an LLM expert expects this already, it's worth pointing out to everyone else. It's not PEBKAC.