Comment by fancyfredbot
9 months ago
If you got as far as checking the output it must have appeared to understand your question.
I wouldn't claim LLMs are good at being factual, or good at arithmetic, or at drawing wine glasses, or that they are "clever". What they are very good at is responding to questions in a way which gives you the very strong impression they've understood you.
I vehemently disagree. If I ask a question with an objective answer, and it simply makes something up and is very confident the answer is correct, what the fuck has it understood other than how to piss me off?
It clearly doesn't understand that the question has a correct answer, or that it does not know the answer. It also clearly does not understand that I hate bullshit, no matter how many dozens of times I prompt it to not make something up and would prefer an admittance of ignorance.
It didn't understand you but the response was plausible enough to require fact checking.
Although that isn't literally indistinguishable from 'understanding' (because your fact checking easily discerned that) it suggests that at a surface level it did appear to understand your question and knew what a plausible answer might look like. This is not necessarily useful but it's quite impressive.
There are times it just generates complete nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said, but it's certainly not most of the time. I do not know how often, but I'd say it's definitely under 10% and almost certainly under 5% that the above happens.
Sure, LLMs are incredibly impressive from a technical standpoint. But they're so fucking stupid I hate using them.
> This is not necessarily useful but it's quite impressive.
I think we mostly agree on this. Cheers.
1 reply →