>I would love to have a product sheet showing what each models strengths an weaknesses are, so that I can have a clear decision tree of "if this kind of work, use model X", or "model Y should be used in ways Z". But they all look the same from the outside and the only way to figure out which might be marginally better at what is to do extensive, time consuming, and perhaps expensive testing.

Think of it less like a static tool, and more like a human helper, where the same holds.

They are not human. Humans have names, faces, voices, personality, a personal history, family, care for whatever they call their community.

With humans it's actually good and worthwhile to create and strengthen connections. With an LLM, that's psychosis.

One issue with that is that human helpers last longer. LLMs cycle in and out in months, and what held for Your Favorite LLM 6.7 may not hold for Your Favorite LLM 6.9.

Except, where every different model and version is like a different person where you need to learn their idiosyncrasies of how they work every other month.

It's a very very bizarre way to use a computer.

Personally, I just don't. I'll use and prompt the LLMs the way that feels natural to me and move on with my life. Maybe I don't always get completely optimal results from them, but im also not spending half my day pleading with the computer to do a task.

No, I won't anthropomorphise LLMs.

Please do not think of LLMs like human helpers, that is a recipe for long term sociopathy.