I feel like you didn't understand the goal of this study

> The DTN-UK stated earlier this year that generic LLMs must never be used as autonomous advisory calculators for insulin delivery. This data is the quantitative evidence base for that statement.

This study is to prove that you should not rely on LLMs

▲

lukeschlather 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The thing is it doesn't really prove LLMs can't do this, it proves no existing frontier LLMs can do this.

The part where they talk about sampling multiple runs is interesting - it suggests to me that in the next few years as the reasoning process is improved the models may be able to do that autonomously.

My mind really is going to using a dedicated object detection models fine-tuned with nutrition information, but I don't think there's a fundamental reason LLMs can't eventually manage this use case, except perhaps the size of the needed weights being prohibitively large.

▲

tsimionescu 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Per some people, LLMs of the future can do literally anything that's possible to do. They could create quantum computers powered by fusion power.

That has nothing to do with the question being asked, can you rely on an LLM today to help you track carbs as a diabetic?

This is very explicitly what the article is all about. Potential future LLMs are entirely irrelevant.

	▲	lukeschlather 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This isn't something so fanciful as fusion power, this is reasonably something that might be within the capabilities of object detection transformers. Whether a different prompt/finetuning with a good dataset could make this work is very relevant here.

▲

The_Blade 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

that is good to know. presented this way i find LLM behavior to be a feature, not a bug. then again i think everything is value add over pen and paper / notepad / spreadsheet and maybe a friend or doctor (or specialized equipment if you need more than calorie in, calorie out). just go exercise and don't be a lard lad

▲

devilbunny 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> just go exercise and don't be a lard lad

You can out-exercise almost any diet, but it takes 3-4 hours a day of a hard workout.

If calories in, calories out was useful advice rather than a banal statement of physics, nobody would be fat.

▲

genewitch 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> If calories in, calories out was useful advice rather than a banal statement of physics

it's also wrong, or at least imprecise. fat and bone and muscle all weigh different amounts, at the same volume.

the only way i've been able to explain the science to laypersons is thus:

if you and a friend both weigh 200lbs, but you once weighed 250lbs and your friend has never weighed more than 200lbs; all else equal: you must ingest less calories than your friend to maintain 200lb body weight.

your body will try to "outlast the famine" if you had to lose a lot of weight (or lost a lot of weight for any reason).

That absolutely does not comport with "calories in, calories out". It's also why the people who were never fat have no problem "just eating a donut."

no, i won't cite, this has been published many times in the last decade, 13 years.

	▲	devilbunny 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, it totally does comport with calories in, calories out. We just don't hook people up to metabolic carts in day-to-day life, but that's really the only way to measure the calories out part. The physics of CICO are undeniable. Humans don't photosynthesize. The biology of CICO is useless. - former fat guy. I'm deeply, personally aware of how useless CICO is as dietary advice.

▲

tsimionescu 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> just go exercise and don't be a lard lad

This is about people suffering from diabetes tracking their insulin needs. You can outrun any diet, but not insulin shots.

▲

fabian2k 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The paper itself is a lot clearer about the purpose. The blog post reads very clickbaity and doesn't really explain the context well.

	▲	Aurornis 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I disagree, it clearly explains that AI carb counting apps are a problem and shouldn’t be used. They’re writing in a neutral way that reaches their audience without lecturing or being condescending. They lead the reader to the conclusion rather than shoving it at them. I think that’s why it’s triggering so many angry comments on HN, but it’s effective for the audience they’re writing for (non technical people who may need convincing but don’t like being preached at)

▲

snapcaster 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's stupid. If i smack myself in the head with a hammer is that proof hammers shouldn't be relied on?

	▲	fc417fc802 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you smack yourself in the head with a hammer and it injures you that's evidence that smacking people in the head with hammers is bad and shouldn't be done, right?
	▲	jkestner 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Here we’re at the origin of the tool and get to watch how many people hit themselves in the head before we learn this collective wisdom. There’s a gap between what the tool will allow you to tell it to do, and what it’s good at. The feedback mechanism to tell the difference is deficient compared to a hammer.
	▲	coldtea 18 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		No, but it would be proof you didn't get the point of the paper.
	▲	19 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	jmye 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are there start-ups led by idiots suggesting that smacking yourself in the head with a hammer will help treat your diabetes? If not, then perhaps there's a problem in your analogy.