Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by njgingrich on Sunday January 07, 2024 @09:37AM
(#38901537)
Well sure, it's easy to make a statement look bad if you only include half of it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by rpdillon on Sunday January 07, 2024 @09:41AM
(#38901565)
The statement is equally hyperbolic both as quoted and in the original context. LLMs often can't quote sources, and those models are nevertheless useful to lots of people. Makes it hard for me to take the rest of the comment seriously.
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by adastra22 on Sunday January 07, 2024 @10:57AM
(#38902254)
A LLM that could quote sources would be even more useful, and in a world where both were available there’d be no reason to use the plagiarizing one.
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by Baldbvrhunter on Sunday January 07, 2024 @11:56AM
(#38902804)
that LLM is https://perplexity.ai
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by ryanklee on Sunday January 07, 2024 @10:01AM
(#38901735)
That was the whole statement. It doesn't have qualifiers left out
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by njgingrich on Sunday January 07, 2024 @10:51AM
(#38902203)
The comment I replied to was updated to include the second half, it was originally just quoting
> A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless