I think this kind of stance is really interesting because of course you’re right but it doesn’t matter. It doesnt actually matter what an LLM can do, it matters what corpos tell us they can do. And according to the corpos this is child’s play.
Well no, most would say “I don’t know”. Which an LLM is unlikely to do unless the training material shows that a consistent answer is “I don’t know”. It will give a fact shaped answer that may fail, but it’s at least ‘shaped’ right.
Again, the big problem is not that LLMs are just useless because they can’t do these little specific tricks, it’s that it is important to continue calibrating expectations, particularly as, at this point, people have bet trillions on these things and that’s a lot of money to have people lie and cheat their way to make everyone overestimate them. Without counter perspective, I think 90% of my coworkers would have been laid off already as the executives just soak in unchallenged marketing bullshit from the big players.
A bit off topic, but that’s pretty much a result of “prompt stuffing”. Your prompt is processed into a good old fashioned search query and then the search results are sort of added to the prompt. Basically from the LLM perspective, it seems a request to rework your source material in a manner consistent with your prompt. The LLM is fed the correct answer, so it doesn’t have to answer, it just has to reword the input.
LLMs fundamentally can’t answer this kind of question, so it’s an unfair test. They don’t see letters, they just see tokens.
It’s a bit like asking a random person on the street the square root of 75. Most will just guess on the spot.
I think this kind of stance is really interesting because of course you’re right but it doesn’t matter. It doesnt actually matter what an LLM can do, it matters what corpos tell us they can do. And according to the corpos this is child’s play.
Well no, most would say “I don’t know”. Which an LLM is unlikely to do unless the training material shows that a consistent answer is “I don’t know”. It will give a fact shaped answer that may fail, but it’s at least ‘shaped’ right.
Again, the big problem is not that LLMs are just useless because they can’t do these little specific tricks, it’s that it is important to continue calibrating expectations, particularly as, at this point, people have bet trillions on these things and that’s a lot of money to have people lie and cheat their way to make everyone overestimate them. Without counter perspective, I think 90% of my coworkers would have been laid off already as the executives just soak in unchallenged marketing bullshit from the big players.
But I’ve seen AI results that are basically extracts of sources. They’ll even give a link to them.
A bit off topic, but that’s pretty much a result of “prompt stuffing”. Your prompt is processed into a good old fashioned search query and then the search results are sort of added to the prompt. Basically from the LLM perspective, it seems a request to rework your source material in a manner consistent with your prompt. The LLM is fed the correct answer, so it doesn’t have to answer, it just has to reword the input.
So?