[rusakov-field]

On one side I am frustrated with LLMs because they derail you by throwing grammatically correct bullshit and hallucinations at you, where if you slip and entertain some of it momentarily it might slow you down.

But on the other hand they are so useful with boilerplate and connecting you with verbiage quickly that might guide you to the correct path quicker than conventional means. Like a clueless CEO type just spitballing terms they do not understand but still that nudging something in your thought process.

But you REALLY need to know your stuff to begin with for they to be of any use. Those who think they will take over are clueless.

[qazxcvbnmlp]

One of the main skills of using the llm well is knowing the difference between useful output and ai slop.

[Mc_Big_G]

>Those who think they will take over are clueless.

You're underestimating where it's headed.

[rusakov-field]

Do you think it will reach "understanding of semantics", true cognition, within our lifetimes ? Or performance indistinguishable from that even if not truly that.

Not sure. I am not so optimistic. People got intoxicated with nuclear powered cars , flying cars , bases on the moon ,etc all that technological euphoria from the 50's and 60's that never panned out. This might be like that.

I think we definitely stumbled on something akin to the circuitry in the brain responsible for building language or similar to it. We are still a long way to go until artificial cognition.

[PlasmaPower]

Why do you think it doesn't have understanding of semantics? I think that was one of the first things to fall to LLMs, as even early models interpreted the word "crashed" differently in "I crashed my car" and "I crashed my computer", and were able to easily conquer the Winograd schema challenge.

[alpaca128]

> even early models interpreted the word "crashed" differently in "I crashed my car" and "I crashed my computer"

That has nothing to do with semantical understanding beyond word co-occurrence.

Those two phrases consistently appear in two completely different contexts with different meaning. That's how text embeddings can be created in an unsupervised way in the first place.

[esafak]

What do you mean? Semantics are determined by distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics

[EMM_386]

> But you REALLY need to know your stuff to begin with for they to be of any use. Those who think they will take over are clueless.

Or - there are enough people who know their stuff that the people who don't will be replaced and they will take over anyway.

[risyachka]

> there are enough people who know their stuff

unless the bar for "know their stuff" is very very low - this is not the case in the nearest future