A fancy autocomplete still. Said with no intent to disparage. If the prior art hasn’t been pulled into the context window, it’s not surprising for the completion to not take it into consideration.

▲

FartyMcFarter a day ago | parent [-]

Sometimes I feel like a fancy autocomplete myself.

Most LLMs these days can use tools (such as web searching), so depending on how strictly you define "autocomplete" this alone could disqualify it from being an autocomplete, fancy or otherwise.

▲

jgilias a day ago | parent [-]

For sure yeah! What I’m pointing out is that I see people mistaking LLMs for “truth engines”, when they’re not. I find the “autocomplete” mental model really useful for when I work with LLMs myself. E.g., always keep in mind what’s in context, what’s not, where to get context.

Goes without saying - humans are no truth engines either lol.

	▲	voidhorse 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, "predictors" or "completers" are a far more accurate metal model for what they actually do and it pays to understand how they "use tools" and what RL, SFT, etc. is and how it makes LLMs seem like much more than what they still, ultimately, are. People latched onto the bs marketing terms like "thinking" way too easily. I don't know where all the classic hacker skepticism and desire to know how things actually work went the past four years.