Sure, I'm really poor painter, Midjourney is better than me. Are they better than a human trained for that task, on that task? That's the real question.
And I reckon the answer is currently no.
You’ve just proven my point. My issue with LLMs is precisely people turning off their brains and blindly taking them at face value, even arduously defending the answers in the face of contrary evidence.
If you’re basing your arguments on those answers then we don’t need to have this conversation. I have access to LLMs like everyone else, I don’t need to come to HN to speak with a robot.
Of course self-driving cars aren’t a nonsense idea. The execution and continued missed promises suck, but that doesn’t affect the idea. Claiming “humans are geniuses without equal” would be pretty dumb too, and is again something you’re making up. And something doesn’t have to be “all snake oil” to deserve specific criticism.
The world has nuance, learn to see it. It’s not all black and white and I’m not your enemy.
Actually understand LLMs in detail and you'll see it isn't some huge waste of time and energy to have LLMs correct outputs from LLMs.
Or, don't, and continue making silly, snarky comments about how stupid some sensible thing is, in a field you don't understand.
Yes, they do *seem* smart. My experience with a wide variety of LLM-based tools is that they are the industrialization of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
We got to the moon using a large number of systems to a) avoid errors where possible and b) build in redundancies. Even an LLM knows this and knew what the statement meant:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e04f-0230-8002-8345-5d2eba2e7d...
Putting "corrected" in quotes and saying "death spiral" implies error compounding.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e19c-7f44-8002-8614-a560620b37...
These LLMs seem so smart.