[embedding-shape]

No one said you cannot run LLMs with the same task more than once. For my local tooling, I usually use the process of "Do X with previously accumulated results, add new results if they come up, otherwise reply with just Y" and then you put that into a loop until LLM signals it's done. Software-wise, you could add so it continues beyond that too, for extra assurance.

In general for chat platforms you're right though, uploading/copy-pasting long documents and asking the LLM to find not one, but multiple needles in a haystack tend to give you really poor results. You need a workflow/process for getting accuracy for those sort of tasks.

[dns_snek]

> and then you put that into a loop until LLM signals it's done

And after that? What's next?

[embedding-shape]

Then you have non-superficial results based even on long contexts. Wasn't it clear I was responding directly to parent's concerns? Could I have made it clearer?

[dns_snek]

What I was getting at is that running LLMs in a loop doesn't really address those concerns at all. You simply get more information, it doesn't do anything for the correctness of that information.

Any patterns it identifies could be imaginary, and you don't have any indication of confidence that all relevant trends have been identified. The most valuable patterns are likely going to be the most hidden and easily missed - those are the ones people are paid to find, not just the low hanging fruit that can be identified with basic statistics.

In the same way that asking an LLM to review some code might produce a hundred superficial comments and miss the things that actually matter.

[jennyholzer2]

no one said you can't turn on the radio and start listening to static

[embedding-shape]

Sure. Is there a point you're trying to make by saying this? I'm afraid your comment is so succinct it isn't obvious what you are trying to say.