|
|
|
|
|
by queenkjuul
15 days ago
|
|
I think people are far too dismissive of just how well-suited programming is to the exact form of LLMs. Extremely formal syntax, limited ambiguity, simple verifiable testing procedures, and colossal well-documented training sets. I don't yet buy that the successes of coding agents will apply nearly as well to other professions. "Correct more often than not when asked a random accounting question" really isn't any indication to me that they'll get there. |
|
This isn't the case in most areas. For example in Law, where everythign is text, you can RL so that an LLM produces an argument which a human would believe to be more reasonable, but you can't get a really fast loop of: make an argument, test it in front of a judge, refine the argument until you win the case.