23 pointsby DamnInteresting10 hours ago2 comments
  • kylecazar14 minutes ago
    I definitely agree with the criticisms, of course they are valid.

    "Is this all worth it?"

    That's the question that matters. Frankly, I think there are scenarios where the answer is yes. It truly depends on what happens now. If accuracy/intelligence stagnate in the current generative LLM paradigm, we'll still need humans, but will also have a powerful new tool that we'll learn how to use appropriately over time. Artists/creatives are resilient and will survive based on the basis of their humanity. It may even save a ton of lives if it delivers on certain fronts.

    If, on the other hand, it drastically improves -- we're in the great unknown and it's anyone's guess.

  • hazbot4 hours ago
    > It’s true that so-called “hallucinations” are an artifact of LLM technology that can never be totally eradicated. But if you think about it, humans make a lot of mistakes as well. A calculator that gives you the correct answer 90% of the time is still an impressive technological achievement!

    I know this article is meant to be dissing on LLMs, am I too caught up in the mania that this sounds to me unironically like a positive argument for LLMs?

    • karahimean hour ago
      I think it makes sense to see it positively. If one wants a calculator, we have calculators. The whole point is reaching things that deterministic calculations either can't or don't in a reasonable timeframe.
    • overtone10004 hours ago
      If you're being serious, my honest answer is yes. But, then, I'm the kind of person who refuses to part with my college texts and graphing calculator because of nostalgia.
    • purple_knock2 hours ago
      No offense is intended with this comment, but genuinely, if you see a calculator that returns incorrect answers 10% of the time as a technological achievement in a world that has had deterministic calculators for the better part of a century, I think it's worth considering that you might be a little caught up.