Nah, more that I forget how dumb people can be sometimes: I was reminded recently that there’s plenty of examples of people spouting LLM-like answers; but I still contend that even most people, trusted in their proper areas, talk with meaning and comprehension.
As to LLMs, perhaps I haven’t given them enough chance. But I have experimented a while myself, read reports of others, and delved into the understanding of how their mathematical models work. So I’m not exactly clueless.
And I would argue that’s utter nonsense and the very existence of sane rational speech disproves it.
I would argue that you’ve clearly formed your opinion without spending significant time giving foundational LLMs a chance
Nah, more that I forget how dumb people can be sometimes: I was reminded recently that there’s plenty of examples of people spouting LLM-like answers; but I still contend that even most people, trusted in their proper areas, talk with meaning and comprehension.
As to LLMs, perhaps I haven’t given them enough chance. But I have experimented a while myself, read reports of others, and delved into the understanding of how their mathematical models work. So I’m not exactly clueless.
That’s impressive for someone who seems clueless
I would encourage you to give foundational large models a chance
I think you’ll find that (barring intentionally subversive inputs) the largest and most powerful models basically don’t hallucinate
O1 in particular is better than humans in my experience