In certain highly constrained and very black-and-white situations (coding?), LLMs can provde barely passable answers in the style of a knowledge base. If trained on a highly specific data set (astrophysics papers) they can serve as a useful index, but even in that case will struggle to remember if and when a paper has been disproven. But in the most general case LLMs are no better suited to answer questions of fact than random number generators are suited to solve statisics problems. And corporations should know this, but are still selling them as if they can know things. How is that not fraud? submitted by /u/thomasafine
Originally posted by u/thomasafine on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.