| ▲ | danaris 2 hours ago | |
...No, it's not at all "like every software". This seems like another instance of a problem I see so, so often in regard to LLMs: people observe the fact that LLMs are fundamentally nondeterministic, in ways that are not possible to truly predict or learn in any long-term way...and they equate that, mistakenly, to the fact that humans, other software, what have you sometimes make mistakes. In ways that are generally understandable, predictable, and remediable. Just because I don't know what's in every piece of software I'm running doesn't mean it's all equally unreliable, nor that it's unreliable in the same way that LLM output is. That's like saying just because the weather forecast sometimes gets it wrong, meteorologists are complete bullshit and there's no use in looking at the forecast at all. | ||
| ▲ | orbital-decay an hour ago | parent [-] | |
>That's like saying just because the weather forecast sometimes gets it wrong, meteorologists are complete bullshit and there's no use in looking at the forecast at all. Are you really not seeing that GP is saying exactly this about LLMs? What you want for this to be practical is verification and low enough error rate. Same as in any human-driven development process. | ||