[kdavis]

My point is you might be when you wrote your comment or I might be in writing this comment.

However, I don't know if I am as I haven't seen, and will likely never see, the implementation behind the text box that is suggesting the next letter, word, or spelling correction as I type.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Can you point at a specific spell checker that is known to use an LLM?

[kdavis]

"A Simple yet Effective Training-free Prompt-free Approach to Chinese Spelling Correction Based on Large Language Models"[1]

[1] https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.966/

[malfist]

That's a research paper. Can you point to a single product that claims they use an LLM for their spellchecker? With today's investor market, surly that would be something a company would brag about.

[kdavis]

This wasn't your original question, which I answered.

This "moving the goalposts", requiring me to know the internals of say a closed source product, just proves my original point. I can't know if an LLM is being used because I don't have the source code.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> This wasn't your original question, which I answered.

No, their original question was,

> Who is using an LLM as a spell checker?

(Emphasis mine)

> This "moving the goalposts", requiring me to know the internals of say a closed source product, just proves my original point. I can't know if an LLM is being used because I don't have the source code.

It's not moving the goalposts, you pointed at research showing that somebody theoretically looked at using LLMs for that purpose, not evidence that anybody is actually doing so which is obviously what we're discussing. This is getting into Russell's Teapot territory; yes, a closed source system could do anything, but it would be nice if we had literally any evidence that they were doing so, especially when you're proposing that they burn orders of magnitude more compute on something that isn't really better than existing systems (i.e. there are obvious downsides).

Edit: I see that you have now posted another comment actually providing that evidence. That's actually compelling; thanks.

[bigstrat2003]

Nobody has moved the goalposts. You claimed that "most spell checkers" would be disallowed by this policy because they use LLMs. You are simply being asked to substantiate that rather bold claim.

[queenkjuul]

I think you moved the goalposts, they asked for a spell checker, you provided a paper

[kdavis]

Craig Federighi SVP of Software at Apple “The keyboard now leverages a transformer language model, which is state of the art for word prediction, making autocorrect more accurate than ever.”[1]

"New features available with macOS Sonoma" doc states "Autocorrect fixes mistakes for you more accurately than ever before by leveraging a new transformer language model in English, French, and Spanish keyboards." [2]

"Introducing Apple’s On-Device and Server Foundation Models" blog post states "Apple Intelligence is comprised of multiple highly-capable generative models that...have been fine-tuned for user experiences such as writing and refining text.. In the following overview, we will detail how two of these models — a ~3 billion parameter on-device language model, and a larger server-based language model."[3]

"A look at Apple’s new Transformer-powered predictive text model" blog post[4] is the kind of deep dive you'd have to do to find out what's going on under the hood in your spelling/grammar checker. TL;DR AppleSpell uses GPT-2 which proves my point.

[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/06/06/wwdc-2023-appl...

[2] https://www.apple.com/mideast/macos/sonoma/pdf/en/macOS_All_...

[3] https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/introducing-apple...

[4] https://jackcook.com/2023/09/08/predictive-text.html

[malfist]

Autocorrect != spellcheck

[kdavis]

Mac User Guide documentation states "When autocorrection is on, misspelled words are detected and automatically corrected as you type."

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-az/guide/mac-help/mchlp2299/mac