Post #2821024

2026-04-16 14:16 UTC

Let's just say that they're startlingly good at doing a particular kind of transformation task, and there is definitely something there that merits further study. (They're also wildly uncontrollable, which is a bit of a problem if you want repeatable or predictable results). 10/

Replies (3)

@angusm@mastodon.social 2026-04-16 14:23

So it seems to me that while most of the LLM-based systems we see today are a resource-intensive party trick with many ruinous side-effects, there's something very much more interesting about the core technology, and that THAT may ultimately prove to be one of the tools in the toolbox for whoever finally Frankensteins together something that we might cautiously call intelligent. And that's why I quibble with @pluralistic@mamot.fr's “will not lead to intelligence" line. 11/

Open ##2821025
@wendynather@infosec.exchange 2026-04-16 14:20

@angusm@mastodon.social It’s only “startling” if you don’t know the math behind it. Think of it as a statistics-driven word dice game player. The stocastic nature is a feature, which is why it’s so unsuitable for many tasks that people are trying to shoehorn it into.

Open ##2821028
@n_dimension@infosec.exchange 2026-04-16 15:07

@angusm@mastodon.social AI is a teachable skill. You can absolutely get decent, verifiable, deterministic results out of stochastic models... ...but it took me about 18 months and incremental model improvements to LEARN how to. Step one is recognising models receive significant upgrades (roughly) quarterly. Step two is keep the hate in check. It's hard to learn objectively about something you hate. I've done my #Aianxiety years ago so I don't have to be distracted by hate.

Open ##2821035