No, it’s… fine. Useful in a limited capacity. Not the machine god, but not machine Satan either. The reality is kind of boring.

▲

vablings 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This summarizes mostly how I feel about it. It's a tool like any other tool we have advanced since the beginning of human civilization

Machine tools replaced blacksmiths

CNC machines replaced manual machines.

Robots replaced CNC machine tenders

CAD replaced draftsman (and also pushed that job onto engineers (grr))

P&P robots replaced human production lines.

The steam train replaced the horse and cart

This is a tale as old as time itself

▲

datsci_est_2015 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What do LLMs replace, pray tell? More like moving from a screwdriver to a drill, rather than replacing the carpenter all together.

Also note that there are inventions that may “replace” some part of a process, but actually induce a greater demand for labor in that process. Take the cotton gin, for example, which exploded the number of slaves required to pick cotton.

	▲	cindyllm 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

kerblang 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Those were deterministic rather than stochastic

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	bigstrat2003 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Exactly. People love to compare LLMs to power tools for carpenters and smiths. But if my miter saw had a 20% chance to produce cuts at a 45 degree angle when I have it set for 90, I would throw it out so fast I would leave Looney Tunes style tracks. A tool which only sometimes does its job is worse than no tool at all.

▲

bitwize 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't even our first AI hype cycle. That happened in the late 70s-80s. Every lab and agency needed Lisp machines to teach computers how to identify Russian missiles—or targets. The "GOFAI" techniques did not live up to the expectations of them, but they settled into niches where they were tremendously useful, and life went on. The same will happen with today's matmul-as-a-service AI.