Or possibly “in addition to”, yeah. I think this is where it needs to go. We can’t keep training HUGE neural networks every 3 months and throw out all the work we did and the billions of dollars in gear and training just to use another model a few months.

That loops is unsustainable. Active learning needs to be discovered / created.

▲

exe34 6 hours ago | parent [-]

if that's the arguement for active learning, wouldn't it also apply in that case? it learns something and 5 minutes later my old prompts are useless.

	▲	t-writescode 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That depends on the goals of the prompts you use with the LLM: * as a glorified natural language processor (like I have done), you'll probably be fine, maybe * as someone to communicate with, you'll also probably be fine * as a very basic prompt-follower? Like, natural language processing-level of prompt "find me the important words", etc. Probably fine, or close enough. * as a robust prompt system with complicated logic each prompt? Yes, it will begin to fail catastrophically, especially if you're wanting to be repeatable. I'm not sure that the general public is that interested in perfectly repeatable work, though. I think they're looking for consistent and improving work.