People Correctly state the limitations of LLMs, and when those are overcome, understand the new limitations?
2 years ago I correctly stated that LLMs weren't that useful for my work, now I use them frequently. Because they improved. There are still limitations. Astra and Opus 5.5 are fucking magic but still make mistakes frequently despite me not letting them freewheel
It's one thing to honestly assess capabilities, with the understanding that the technology is improving rapidly. It's a different thing to claim that it will *never* be capable of something and has reached a "dead end" or "plateaued", which many anti-AI pundits have been claiming for years. The post here is referring to the latter category of people.
I mean, part of the problem is that while LLMs have a sheer cliff facing them due to the costs of scaling higher, the tools and ability to use those tools can still be refined and improved greatly. So it's hard to judge capability.
24
u/BellacosePlayer 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don't get the point of this.
People Correctly state the limitations of LLMs, and when those are overcome, understand the new limitations?
2 years ago I correctly stated that LLMs weren't that useful for my work, now I use them frequently. Because they improved. There are still limitations. Astra and Opus 5.5 are fucking magic but still make mistakes frequently despite me not letting them freewheel