[sdf2erf]

I view LLMs akin to a dictionary - has a bunch of stuff in there but by itself it doesn't add any value. The value comes from the individual piecing together the stuff. Im observing this in the process of using Grok to put together a marketing video - theres a whole bunch of material that the LLM can call upon to produce an output. But its on you to prompt/provide it the right input content to finesse what comes out (this requires the individual to have a lot of intelligence/taste etc....) . Thats the artistry of it.

Now that Im here Ill say Im actually very impressed with Groks ability to output video content in the context of simulating the real-world. They seemingly have the edge on this dimension vs other model providers. But again - this doesnt mean much unless its in the hands of someone with taste etc. You cant one-shot great content. You actually have to do it frame-by-frame then stitch it together.

[richardw]

> I view LLMs akin to a dictionary

…If every time you looked at the dictionary it gave you a slightly different definition, and sometimes it gave you the wrong definition!

[sdf2erf]

Go look up the same word across various dictionaries - they do not have a 1:1 copy of the descriptions of terms.

Reproducibility is a separate issue.

[fauigerzigerk]

Dictionaries are not a great analogy, because the standout feature of LLMs is that their output can change based on the context provided by individual users.

Differences between dictionaries are decided by the authors and publishers of the dictionaries without taking individual user queries into account.