[strange_quark]

> I think LLMs are the most fascinating new piece of computer science to come along in at least the past decade.

Agree to disagree.

> The academic field of computer science pretty much started as an exploration into whether machines could be built that could understand human language.

No? CS started as an offshoot of applied mathematics and physics. The study of formal logic, algorithms, digital circuits, etc. predates Turing by centuries. Hell, even the Turing machine predates the Turing test by a couple decades.

[tptacek]

Wait, really? Say more about the disagreement? That's interesting. Even LLM skeptics I've talked to are still shocked at how far transformers can get you.

[strange_quark]

I guess it depends how you define fascinating. I think there's certainly aspects of ML that I find fascinating, but I don't think that LLMs specifically are actually that interesting. In fairness, I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't surprised that you could get this far with the transformer. On the other hand, it's shouldn't be that surprising that if you can mobilize an Iraq war's level of money and a bunch of smart people to work on one specific thing, you can muscle basically anything into existence.

But back to the GP comment: I'm still not sure why a CS prof necessarily needs to be able to poke at LLMs at all. There are plenty of other areas of CS that are worth exploring. And if it's not possible to make a good LLM without violating your principles, well, then maybe they aren't such a worthwhile piece of technology.