You are going with assumption that llms will remain same forever. There are atte...

latexr · 2024-09-25T12:22:32 1727266952

> You are going with assumption that llms will remain same forever.

I definitely am not and that’s stated directly in my post. I specifically said “but no one doubts more will be possible”.

> There are attempts everywhere to make them smaller, efficient and more focused.

That doesn’t matter when the issue is inherit. An LLM, by definition, needs large amounts of data and acts on them probabilistically. If you change that, it’s no longer an LLM. Any system that requires predictability needs to be programmed with rules we can understand, test, and reproduce reliably. LLMs ain’t it, and won’t ever be. Something else by a different name, maybe.

> Would you have called « transferring mails online « in the 90s is hype-chasing because our postal system was working great? Probably not a great analogy but you get the point

I understand analogies are never perfect, but that’s a particularly bad one. At least stay within the same realm of physicality. You made a bad comparison then ascribed a bad argument to be against it. That’s a straw man. I don’t even believe our current digital system is “working great”, so the analogy fails on multiple levels.

There are bad programmers and bad technology everywhere, the world is barely held by proverbial spit and bubblegum. Yet that doesn’t mean any crap that’s invented afterwards, be it “web3” or LLMs are immediately the solution.

praveen9920 · 2024-09-27T19:58:10 1727467090

You are missing the whole point of comment. Its a prediction/ speculation. I agree that it may seem bad with current state of things but no one can say with certainty it WILL be bad. There might be hybrid models which can do both probabilistic AND heuristic work within the scope, you never know. That’s my whole point.

If you see my comment, I said AI, not LLMs.