←back to thread

1479 points sandslash | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
OJFord ◴[] No.44324130[source]
I'm not sure about the 1.0/2.0/3.0 classification, but it did lead me to think about LLMs as a programming paradigm: we've had imperative & declarative, procedural & functional languages, maybe we'll come to view deterministic vs. probabilistic (LLMs) similarly.

    def __main__:
        You are a calculator. Given an input expression, you compute the result and print it to stdout, exiting 0.
        Should you be unable to do this, you print an explanation to stderr and exit 1.
(and then, perhaps, a bunch of 'DO NOT express amusement when the result is 5318008', etc.)
replies(10): >>44324398 #>>44324762 #>>44325091 #>>44325404 #>>44325767 #>>44327171 #>>44327549 #>>44328699 #>>44328876 #>>44329436 #
aaron695[dead post] ◴[] No.44325404[source]
[flagged]
bgwalter ◴[] No.44326722[source]
> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills?

Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it takes over people's minds.

replies(2): >>44326752 #>>44327102 #
boppo1 ◴[] No.44326752[source]
>Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking

Is there hard evidence on this?

replies(4): >>44326923 #>>44326929 #>>44327015 #>>44327122 #
1. infecto ◴[] No.44327122[source]
Short answer no.

Longer answer there was that study posted this week that compared it to using search and then what was it…raw thinking or something similar. I could totally understand in certain cases you are not activating parts of your brain as much, I don’t know any of it proves much in aggregate.