> Do you speak two or more languages? Anyone that does is wary of automated translations, especially across estranged cultures.
I'm aware that it's imperfect. It's still pretty cool that they're multilingual as an emergent property - and rather than merely translating, you can discuss aspects of another language. Of course it hallucinates - that's the big problem with LLMs - but that doesn't make it useless. Besides, while automated translators aren't perfect, they're the only option in a lot of situations.
> It's data analysis at scale, and reliant on scrapping what humans produced. A word processor does not need TB of eBooks to do it's job.
And I'm not replacing word processors with LLMs, nor did I claim that they were trained in a vacuum.
> Because there's no wrong or right about poetry. Would you be comfortable having LLMs managing your bank account?
No, which is why I don't intend to... they're probabilistic and immensely fallible. I wasn't claiming they were gods. My point was that they're far outside of what we usually use computers for (e.g. managing your bank account), and that opens a lot of possibilities.
> That would be hand-holding, not learning.
Correct. That's why we don't do it... and in normal circumstances, it'd probably be better to deeply consider the problem in order to work out why you were wrong. But a week before the exam it's excellent. I got a healthy A*, so it doesn't seem to have hurt.
What exactly are you arguing against? I'm not convinced they're a route to AGI either, and I'm not about to replace my graphics driver with an LLM, nor code written by one - but you seem to have a vendetta against them that's lead to you sidestepping every single point I made with a snide remark against claims you seem to have imagined me making.
I'm aware that it's imperfect. It's still pretty cool that they're multilingual as an emergent property - and rather than merely translating, you can discuss aspects of another language. Of course it hallucinates - that's the big problem with LLMs - but that doesn't make it useless. Besides, while automated translators aren't perfect, they're the only option in a lot of situations.
> It's data analysis at scale, and reliant on scrapping what humans produced. A word processor does not need TB of eBooks to do it's job.
And I'm not replacing word processors with LLMs, nor did I claim that they were trained in a vacuum.
> Because there's no wrong or right about poetry. Would you be comfortable having LLMs managing your bank account?
No, which is why I don't intend to... they're probabilistic and immensely fallible. I wasn't claiming they were gods. My point was that they're far outside of what we usually use computers for (e.g. managing your bank account), and that opens a lot of possibilities.
> That would be hand-holding, not learning.
Correct. That's why we don't do it... and in normal circumstances, it'd probably be better to deeply consider the problem in order to work out why you were wrong. But a week before the exam it's excellent. I got a healthy A*, so it doesn't seem to have hurt.
What exactly are you arguing against? I'm not convinced they're a route to AGI either, and I'm not about to replace my graphics driver with an LLM, nor code written by one - but you seem to have a vendetta against them that's lead to you sidestepping every single point I made with a snide remark against claims you seem to have imagined me making.