7 ms·
Had the exact same thought after reading the abstract… FWIW, delve only appears in the abstract. Having not read the rest of the paper yet, I might give the aut
by bzalasky 2y ago
Had the exact same thought after reading the abstract… FWIW, delve only appears in the abstract. Having not read the rest of the paper yet, I might give the authors the benefit of the doubt that they used an LLM to summarize their findings for the abstract, but didn't abuse an LLM in writing the entire paper.
- bee_rider 2y agoPutting aside the possibility that they just happened to use the word “delve,” IMO we still have to figure out the convention for this sort of thing. I don’t particularly value the time scientists spend writing the prose around their ideas, the ideas themselves are the valuable part. One possibility, for example, could be journals allow AI written submissions but also require and distribute the prompts. Then we could just read the prompts and be spared stuff like the passive voice dance. They probably abused a compiler to generate their program instead of writing it in assembly.
- manmal 2y agoA compiler yields deterministic results though.
- kolinko 2y agollms are also deterministic
- manmal 2y agoNo, in most cases the same input will yield a different output.
- Zambyte 2y agoNo, LLMs are deterministic. What you are describing is a randomized seed, which is another input to the LLM. Some interfaces expose this input, and some do not.
- coldtea 2y agoin a deterministic way based on seeds
- Drakim 2y agoOnly because most tools provide a randomize seed alongside the input, but you don't have to do that.
- kolinko 2y agoOnly if you have a non-zero temperature. You have to program in nondeterminism, because otherwise they are 100% deterministic.
- bee_rider 2y agoRegardless of the nitty-gritty “determinism” questions; why’s this matter?
- Sysreq2 2y agoSoon AI will turn a chickenscrath of notes into a wonderful email. And then turn it back automatically for the end reader. We put to much emphasis on the look rather than the substance. People are afraid to send out an email with 2 words: Meeting Friday and instead pad it out with pleasantry and detail, context and importance, but none of that really matters.
- ericjmorey 2y ago'Meeting Friday" is not enough information to have me attend the meeting. So I'm not sure what this analogy was supposed to illustrate.
- bee_rider 2y agoDepends on who it is from I guess.
- idiotsecant 2y agoIt's not enough information no matter who it is. If it's someone with enough political, social, or institutional capital you might overlook the annoyance but it still only tells you when. Doesnt say the what the when or the who, all of which have consequences for what I need to do to be prepared.
- Sysreq2 2y agoExactly what you demonstrated. ‘Meeting Friday’ was the message. You completely ignored the rest. It was just extra padding (intentionally so). Maybe 2 words is too short. But can you honestly tell me that the majority of emails you receive is suscinct and to the point? Or do you simply skim them for highlights and extract what is relevant to you? That’s really the take away I was trying to get at. People equate quantity to quality far too often. We send way more content than we need to out of fear that someone will equate less with bad.