This argument makes no more sense than trying to say that a plant is thinking because brains are made of cells and so are plants.
FizzyOrange
joined 2 years ago
By that logic we also conclude that the human brain doesn't "think" about what it is saying.
It's really amazing the number of people trying to argue that LLMs are useless, while simultaneously so many people are using them successfully. Makes me wonder if they've even tried them.
Well… isn’t it? If one’s daily or most frequent back-and-forth journeys don’t exceed 100 ㎞, then a 160 ㎞ range is indeed fine.
Uhm... No. Most people only have one car so if you get one that only works 95% if the time it's going to be super inconvenient when you have to hire a car every time you go on holiday or visit your family or go to a distant concert or whatever.
That's why low range electric cars are not very popular.
Ah yes the old pointless vague anecdote.
If your argument is "LLMs can't do useful work", and then I say "no, I've used them to do useful work many times" how is that a pointless vague anecdote? It's a direct proof that you're wrong.
Promoting pseudo-science.
Sorry what? This is bizarre.
Because most users simply use the browser
This is the same problem as saying "an electric car with 100 mile range is totally fine because most journeys are well under 100 miles".
Most of the time I'm only using a browser (or VSCode). The annoying thing is the 1% of times when I want to print something, create a shortcut, use bluetooth headphones, configure a static IP, etc.
Use Photopea instead. It’s practically a copy-paste of Photoshop but in the browser, created by one person. Or if one has never used Photoshop before, try GIMP first.
Saying Photopea or GIMP is "practically a copy-paste of Photoshop" is laughable. Paint.NET, maybe.
LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns
Ah still rolling out the old "stochastic parrot" nonsense I see.
Anyway on to the actual article... I was hoping it wouldn't make these basic mistakes:
[Typescript] looks more like an “enterprise” programming language for large institutions, but we honestly don’t have any evidence that it’s genuinely more suitable for those circumstances than the regular JavaScript.
Yes we do. Frankly if you've used it it's so obviously better than regular JavaScript you probably don't need more evidence (it's like looking for "evidence" that film stars are more attractive than average people). But anyway we do have great papers like this one.
Anyway that's slightly beside the point. I think the article is right that smart people are not invulnerable to manipulation or falling for "obviously" stupid ideas. I know plenty of very smart religious people for example.
However I think using this to dismiss LLMs is dumb, in the same way that his dismissal of Typescript is. LLMs aren't homeopathy or religion.
I have used LLMs to get some work done and... guess what, it did the work! Do I trust it to do everything? Obviously not. But sometimes I don't need perfect code. For example recently I asked it to create an example SystemVerilog file for me utilising as many syntax features as possible (testing an auto-formatter). It did a pretty good job. Saved some time. What psychological hazard have I fallen for exactly?
Overall, B-. Interesting ideas but flawed logic.
No, I said that some important features don't exist. They said "well I don't use them", as if that somehow negated the point that they don't exist. It's typical "works for me" nonsense. You get these replies whenever anyone says anything is suboptimal about Linux. It's so tedious.
These are probably the biggest reasons, but I think even after literally decades of development the actual desktop is still far behind Windows XP in many respects.
For example today I wanted to add a "start menu" shortcut to a program I had downloaded. The most popular answer is to *manually create a .desktop file and copy it to some obscure dot directory! Hilarious. Even Windows 3.1 had a built-in GUI for this.
Ok so there is a GUI to do it, but it isn't actually integrated into desktops and isn't installed by default. You have to install it separately.
It's the same for things like WiFi settings! There are some settings in GNOME but most are hidden in the third party nm-connection-editor (from memory) and of course GNOME doesn't have an "advanced settings" button to open that.
There are so many of these paper cuts I think Linux would be quite a frustrating experience for many people even if if had Windows-level hardware support.
I also can't see this changing any time soon. Not that many Linux devs actually care about this sort of thing and many of them don't even understand that it is a problem in the first place. Cue replies.
Because I can read? Lol ok.
And how do you know LLMs can't tell that they are involved in a conversation?
Unless you think there is something non-computational in the human brain, then you must accept that computers are - in theory - capable of thinking. With the right software and sufficiently powerful hardware.
Given that truth (which I think you can only avoid through religion or quantum quackery), you can't just say "it's only maths; it can't be thinking" because we know that maths can think.
Do LLMs "think"? The definition of "think" is wooly enough and we understand them little enough that it's quite an assertion to say that they definitely don't.