There’s a problem with absolutist positions like “LLMs just parrot gibberish” (your statement from another thread) because such observations focus on some narrow fault(s) that may or may not even exist any longer, are not necessarily indicative of any intrinsic problems with the technology, and miss the big picture of AI’s broad utility. Of course there’s also the danger of being an overly optimistic evangelist, like many AI researchers were in the 60s. But we’re in an entirely new era now, and I think it’s the naysayers who will be proven wrong.
Here’s an example where I’d welcome your criticism of an LLM response and how this comports with your position of generative AI being useless. A knowledgeable poster on this board, who I believe is a professor of computer science, in a discussion about AI and specifically about its level of confidence, wrote a fairly detailed analysis about the inherent weaknesses of LLMs. Given the subject matter, I thought there would be a whimsical irony in having ChatGPT itself provide a response.
That response is in the next post. I have some comments I could make about it but I’ll ask you first if you consider this a useful critique, or “gibberish”.
I have lots of other examples I could give you.