←back to thread

174 points Philpax | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
andrewstuart ◴[] No.43719877[source]
LLMs are basically a library that can talk.

That’s not artificial intelligence.

replies(3): >>43719994 #>>43720037 #>>43722517 #
52-6F-62 ◴[] No.43719994[source]
Grammar engines. Or value matrix engines.

Everytime I try to work with them I lose more time than I gain. Net loss every time. Immensely frustrating. If i focus it on a small subtask I can gain some time (rough draft of a test). Anything more advanced and its a monumental waste of time.

They are not even good librarians. They fail miserably at cross referencing and contextualizing without constant leading.

replies(2): >>43720038 #>>43720258 #
1. andrewstuart ◴[] No.43720038[source]
I feel the opposite.

LLMs are unbelievably useful for me - never have I had a tool more powerful to assist my brain work. I useLLMs for work and play constantly every day.

It pretends to sound like a person and can mimic speech and write and is all around perhaps the greatest wonder created by humanity.

It’s still not artificial intelligence though, it’s a talking library.

replies(1): >>43720148 #
2. 52-6F-62 ◴[] No.43720148[source]
Fair. For engineering work they have been a terrible drain on me save for the most minor autocomplete. Its recommendations are often deeply flawed or almost totally hallucinated no matter the model. Maybe I am a better software engineer than a “prompt engineer”.

Ive tried to use them as a research assistant in a history project and they have been also quite bad in that respect because of the immense naivety in its approaches.

I couldn’t call them a librarian because librarians are studied and trained in cross referencing material.

They have helped me in some searches but not better than a search engine at a monumentally higher investment cost to the industry.

Then again, I am also speaking as someone who doesn’t like to offload all of my communications to those things. Use it or lose it, eh

replies(1): >>43720263 #
3. andrewstuart ◴[] No.43720263[source]
I’m curious you’re a developer who finds no value in LLMs?

It’s weird to me that there’s such a giant gap with my experience of it bein a minimum 10x multiplier.