Rendered at 10:17:03 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
hazbot 12 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?
overtone1000 12 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_knock 11 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.
8 hours ago [-]
karahime 9 hours 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.
simianwords 5 hours ago [-]
This is a horrible article written by someone clearly upset about the state of things to process it objectively.
Please refute this argument: how can you expect 100% accuracy when your input is natural language which is fuzzy by definition?
clbrmbr 8 hours ago [-]
> We’re already ripping the spines out of old rare paper books (we playfully call these “low-background steel”)
can someone closer to pretraining elaborate?
8bitsrule 8 hours ago [-]
Not at all close, but this link might give you more to go on (includes more links):
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?
Please refute this argument: how can you expect 100% accuracy when your input is natural language which is fuzzy by definition?
can someone closer to pretraining elaborate?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ai-companies-destroying-ra...
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Panama
Replace "nuclear explosion" with "AI produced works"