Comment by rkeene2

2 years ago

If a broken tool is useful, do you not use it because it is broken ?

Overpowered LLMs like GPT-4 are both broken (according to how you are defining it) and useful -- they're just not the idealized version of the tool.

9 comments

rkeene2

Reply
freejazz  2 years ago

Maybe not if its the case that your use of the broken tool would result in the eventual undoing of your work. Like, lets say your staple gun is defective and doesn't shoot the staples deep enough, but it still shoots. You can keep using the gun, but it's not going to actually do its job. It seems useful and functional, but it isn't and its liable to create a much bigger mess.

  • rkeene2  2 years ago

    So to continue the analogy, if the staple gun is broken and it requires you to do more than a working (but non-existent) staple gun BUT less work than doing the affixment without the broken staple gun, you would or would not use it ?

    • windowshopping  2 years ago

      But nobody said they wouldn't use it. You said that. You came up with this idea and then demanded other people defend it.

      I don't know why "critiquing the tool" is being equated to "refusing to use the tool."

      I don't like calling something a strawman, because I think it's an overused argument, but...I mean...

      1 reply →

    • freejazz  2 years ago

      I think you are missing the point. If I do use it, then my result will be a broken and defective product. How exactly is that not clear? That's the point. It might not be observable to be, but whatever I'm affixing with the staple gun will come loose because its not working right and not sinking the staples in deep enough...

      If I don't use it, then the tool is not used and provided no benefit...

      4 replies →