←back to thread

317 points laserduck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
myflash13 ◴[] No.42171710[source]
Anything that requires deep “understanding” or novel invention is not a job for a statistical word regurgitator. I’ve yet to see a single example, in any field, of an LLM actually inventing something truly novel (as judged by the experts in that space). Where LLMs shine is in producing boilerplate -- though that is super useful. So far I have yet to see anything resembling an original “thought” from an LLM (and I use AI at work every day).
replies(3): >>42172675 #>>42176079 #>>42177501 #
myflash13 ◴[] No.42172675[source]
Experiment: you think LLMs can innovate on chip design? Ask it to do something much simpler: invent a new better sorting algorithm. We use names such as Timsort or Djikstra for a specific reason: because it requires rare human ingenuity to invent such things. If an LLM can’t invent a new sorting algorithm that is meaningfully better in some way than existing known algorithms, then good luck on something much harder like chip design.
replies(2): >>42172747 #>>42174505 #
1. klabb3 ◴[] No.42172747[source]
You can set the bar lower. Have it invent another n log n sorting algorithm. Or omit all merge sort implementations from training data and see if it can re-invent it.

But I certainly agree in general. It’s been years and there are still no independent novel discoveries afaik.