We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve?

This seems like a great source for domain-specific RL, but even without that, we can expect there to be higher-quality LLMs that can be trivially swapped in within a year, if not a week.

▲

toofy 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve?

i didn’t say this at all. did you respond to the wrong comment?

i was responding to the comment which said:

> … remove humans from the equation, then.

▲

lkbm 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> a bot that doesn’t learn

▲

toofy 10 hours ago | parent [-]

i most certainly did not say or imply:

> We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve?

the context of my response was “removing humans from the equation” is sillytier thinking.

not “We should never use LLMs”

	▲	lkbm 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, but I don't understand what you're getting at with them not learning? They acquire more information, get better at providing accurate and relevant information, and acquire new skills. What is the learning they're not doing? Maybe a human should be available as a backup or something, but not because LLMs don't "learn" -- the system seems to learn in all relevant senses. (I'd also object to the no accountability, but another subthread is already on that.)