Comment by visarga
4 days ago
You don't use it that way. You use it to help you build and run experiments, and help you discuss your findings, and in the end helps you write your discoveries. You provide the content, and actual experiments provide the signal.
Like clockwork. Each time someone criticizes any aspect of any LLM there's always someone to tell that person they're using the LLM wrong. Perhaps it's time to stop blaming the user?
If someone says that they can't get a camera to work, you tell them how to fix it, right? I can't think of what other response is appropriate.
Why would their response be appropriate when even the creators of the LLM doesn't clearly state the purpose of their software, yet alone instruct users how to use it? The person I replied to said that this software should be used yo "help you build and run experiments, and help you discuss your findings, and in the end helps you write your discoveries" - I dare anyone to find any mention of this workflow being the "correct" way of using any LLM in the LLM's official documentation.
Validation that cameras will never work and photographs aren't real.
You wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail. Understanding how to use a tool is part of using the tool. It's early days and how to make the best use of these tools is still being discovered. Fortunately a lot of people are experimenting on what works best, so it only takes a little bit of reading to get more consistent results.
What if the company selling the screwdriver kept telling you your could use it as a hammer? What if you were being bombarded with marketing the hammers are being replaced by screwdrivers?
You can recognise that the technology has a poor user interface and is wrought with subtleties without denying its underlying capabilities. People misuse good technology all the time. It's kind of what users do. I would not expect a radically new form of computing which is under five years old to be intuitive to most people.