5 ms·
Both can be true, because the experience depends on the skill of the user. The article the other day here on HN that LLMs reward skill is my exact experience.
by NyxWulf 1mo ago
Both can be true, because the experience depends on the skill of the user. The article the other day here on HN that LLMs reward skill is my exact experience. If you are are good at what you are trying to use it for they can be a skill amplifier, and they are definitely getting much better rapidly for the work I do with them. At the same time people are complaining that they are getting dumber. Saying that both can't be true ignores the skill requirement to use them and the completely different perspectives of people using them.
Even if both aren't true, your evidence was people saying two opposing things. The truth (if there is a single objective truth on a given thing) has little bearing on whether or not different people agree on it.
- totallygeeky 1mo ago"Skill" with an LLM is nonsense. It's non-deterministic, so any equal efforts are not to be given equal outcome.
- farbklang 1mo agonot equal, but probabisticly better. Best example: give the agent a tight spec and it will perform better compared with a spec that leaves room for interpretation. This is true for all models, more or less. (purely anecdotal of course)
- whatisthiseven 1mo agoYou could say the same when applied to games with high RNG and chance, such as Slay the Spire 2, and yet those with real skill do perform far better than those without. Those with skill can clear the highest difficulties more often than those with lower skill. Something being "non-deterministic" is orthogonal to whether or not skill plays a role.
- AbrahamParangi 1mo ago"Skill" at poker is nonsense. It's non-deterministic, so any equal efforts are not to be given equal outcome.
- sdenton4 1mo agoBaseball is also non-deterministic, and yet some players are apparently worth a lot more than others.
- aoeusnth1 1mo agoSoccer is nondeterministic. Are you as good as Messi?
- DiogenesKynikos 1mo ago> At the same time people are complaining that they are getting dumber. I think this is due to rapidly rising expectations. When LLMs first show they can do some new thing, we're excited at first. Then, we quickly start taking it for granted, and get upset whenever the LLM fails. Just three years ago, LLMs could barely hold a conversation. Now, they're writing entire code bases and solving famous mathematical conjectures, but we still focus on whatever they can't do.