It's difficult to fix because the incentive is to make sure it has the answer, not to give it lots of questions to which there are known answers but have it answer "I don't know" (if you did that, you'd bias the model to be unable to answer those specific questions). Ergo, in inference, on questions not in the dataset, it's more inclined to make up an answer because it has very few "I don't know" samples in general.
> By default, Microsoft Edge provides spelling and grammar checking using Microsoft Editor. When using Microsoft Editor, Microsoft Edge sends your typed text and a service token to a Microsoft cloud service over a secure HTTPS connection. The service token doesn't contain any user-identifiable information. A Microsoft cloud service then processes the text to detect spelling and grammar errors in your text. All your typed text that's sent to Microsoft is deleted immediately after processing occurs. No data is stored for any period of time.
That's because it's obvious due to effects other than the one you're trying to observe. Which is of course the case when you're dealing with psychedelics (and of course many other drugs).
Interesting, all of the ones you cite are older than 20 years, so the patents should have long expired and should be free for anyone to bring to market?
People (especially people who don't have a lot of hands on tech experience, or students who also aren't into building things) get the sense that writing software requires learning a lot of arcane tools. And the idea is to promise that anyone who can write a specification should be able to make software (yes, handwaving away the learning to specify well, which is a real skill with many dependent skills). This was the promise of no-code, and then they realized that the no-code system (in addition to usually being limited in power) is actually complex and requires specialized learning, and more of that the more powerful the system is. The LLM will replace SWEs approach is another take on that, because you don't need to learn a system, you prompt in natural language, and the model knows how to interface with the underlying system so you don't have to. In that sense, vibe coding is already the culmination of this goal (despite weaknesses such as maintainability issues).
I've seen it written that the main reason managers tend to want to get rid of SWEs is because they don't understand how to interface with them. Using an LLM solves that problem, because you don't need a nerd to operate it.
> I've seen it written that the main reason managers tend to want to get rid of SWEs is because they don't understand how to interface with them
That’s because software is nebulous enough that you can get away with promising the moon to customers/boss, but in the next meeting, you’re given a reality check by the SWEs. And then you realize the mess you’re thrown everyone in.
Managers knows how to interface with SWEs well (people interface with professionals all the time). Most just hates going back to the engineers to get real answers when they fancy themselves as products owners.
> they don't understand how to interface with them
In other words, they are not good managers. A good manager should be able to work with all kinds of people with different backgrounds and personalities.
> Using an LLM solves that problem, because you don't need a nerd to operate it.
Until you do. LLMs are great ar building prototypes but at some point if you don’t know what you’ll doing you’ll end up with an unmaintainable mess and you won’t have anyone to fix it.
I mean LLMs perhaps are capable of doing that too but they still need to be guided by people who are capable of understanding their output.
Being able to reduce the number of engineers that you need by e.g. 80% would still be a great deal though.
> I don't think the news thing would surprise anyone either.
People who you'd expect to realize this still read the news acknowledging everything they're till they get to a specific domain the news covers. A la Gell-Mann Amnesia.
The solution to that would be to force companies within the EU market to compete with each other (fair competition laws), just that idea is less popular than the first winner in a market ensuring they stay dominant (because it serves the interest of those who just got power). Same reason why big tech rules EU in the first place.
reply