Their comment is "do it consistently, then I'll buy your explanation"
He didn’t literally say it but the comment implies it is worthless as does yours.
Humans dont “buy it” when they think something is worthless. The tonality is bent this way.
He could have said, “this is amazingly useful data but we need more” but of course it doesn’t read like this at all thanks to the first paragraph. Let’s not hallucinate it into something it’s not with wordplay. The comment is highly negative.
> Anything beyond that is your personal interpretation.
Not true. In the context of that post when something is implied that it only seems amazing it also implies that it is likely not amazing. That is a common human interpretation. I find if you’re not interpreting it that way your emotions are influencing your interpretation.
> Do you disagree that there is an excess of cherrypicked LLM examples getting anthropomorphized?
I disagree. I think everybody is doing the opposite and cherry-picking the instances where the LLM gets stuff wrong and saying LLMs are garbage because of that and ignoring the instances where it gets shit right and classifying that instance as regurgitation.
You’re not being rational here by bringing up anthropomorphization. We are mainly talking about correctness. If an aspect of LLM intelligence is similar to humans in generating correct data then anthropomorphizing it is the way to go. Whether it’s anthropomorphizing something is completely orthogonal to the problem. We are talking about correct results. If anthropomorphizing something gets us there… who cares? Human intelligence works and it’s even reasonable to believe LLMs think like humans because they are literally trained on human data.
The act of even mentioning anthropomorphization without mentioning correctness is irrational and illogical.
Let me spell it out for you. These results. Are. Not. Worthless.
Certainly what you said is correct on what he “should” do to get additional data, but your tonality of implying that the results are utter trash and falsely anthropomorphizing something is wrong.
Why is it wrong? Imagine Einstein got most things wrong in his life. Most things but he did discover special and general relativity. It’s just everything else was wrong. Relativity is still worth something. The results are still worthwhile.
We have an example of an LLM hallucinating. Then we have another example of additional contextual data causing the LLM to stop hallucinating. This is a data point leaving a clue about hallucinations and stopping hallucinations. It’s imperfect but a valuable clue.
My guess is that there’s a million causal factors that cause an LLM to hallucinate and he’s found one.
If he does what he did a multitude of times for different topics and different problems where contextual data stops an hallucination, with enough data and categorization of said data we may be able to output statistical data and have insight into what’s going on from a statistical perspective. This is just like how we analyze other things that produce fuzzy data like humans.
Oh no! Am I anthropomorphizing again?? Does that action make everything I said wrong? No, it doesn’t. Humans produce correct data when given context. It is reasonable to assume in many cases LLMs will do the same. I wrote this post because I agree with everything you said but not your tone which implies that what OP did is utterly trivial.