[AdieuToLogic]

> It's not an LLM problem, it's a problem of how people use it.

True, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

> It feels natural to have a sequential conversation, so people do that, and get frustrated. A much more powerful way is parallel: ask LLM to solve a problem.

LLM's do not "solve a problem." They are statistical text (token) generators whose response is entirely dependent upon the prompt given.

> LLMs can can't tell legitimate concerns from nonsensical ones.

Again, because LLM algorithms are very useful general purpose text generators. That's it. They cannot discern "legitimate concerns" because they do not possess the ability to do so.

[Terr_]

> LLM's do not "solve a problem."

Right, or at any rate, the problems they do solve are ones of document-construction, which may sometimes resemble a different problem humans are thinking of... but isn't actually being solved.

For example, an LLM might take the string "2+2=" and give you "2+2=4", but it didn't solve a math problem, it solved a "what would usually get written here" problem.

We ignore this distinction at our peril.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Right, or at any rate, the problems they do solve are ones of document-construction, which may sometimes resemble a different problem humans are thinking of... but isn't actually being solved.

This is such a great way to express the actuality in a succinct manner.

Thank you for sharing it.