https://bgsp.edu/app/uploads/2...

In practice I think it takes about 10 minutes of playing around and some curiosity.

>thinks the LLM constructed something and had agency and insight

No, you absolute pollywhompus-brained buffoon - but the value is in the solution it provided my in 2 paragraphs, not reading 10 different webpages.

>because you have no clue how research, or risk management or securing software works.

It's so sad that in devoting your life to one particular thing you don't see the value in learning new things. Good luck with that.

No, I'm claiming your critique has nothing to do with statistics.

>you should know that LLMs are just statistical engines that string a bunch of words together which are statistically likely to follow from the prompt, given the body of text the LLM has been trained on

This is not a serious critique, and it's definitely not statistical in nature.

I find, in practice, for the LLM to be correct most of the time, nearly always writes the code that I need to close specifications the first time, and borderline insightful for certain tasks.

> If you're doing something fairly common for which there are a number of good examples in the training set
That's almost all of human knowledge.

>I have a student evaluate the major coding assistant and some general LLMs on how good they can judge code security

I think it's pretty clear you're evaluating the outer perimeter of what an LLM is meant to do, and not where people might find it useful.

So if you want to judge LLMs by the insufficiency to perform a specific, precise task, then fine - but all of the rest of us are using it in a totally different way and finding a lot of value.

So you want an LLM that does everything you already do, but better than you? It's not the use case, the use case is helping you with things that you don't have mastery over already.

Your challenge to the LLM is a test to replace you (probably because you're afraid it will replace you). Instead try to use it when you need help with something you aren't already good at.

Or do you only do things you're good at? A character flaw to rival incuriosity.

Last week if you posted, "AI can do LITERALLY NOTHING" you got 5 points.

This week, "LLMs are somewhat better than search but THAT'S IT"

An LLM helped me build an automatic farm in minecraft with my child. And if you don't understand why that's impressive, you ought to reassess. An LLM helped my SO learn how to use a piece of new commercial equipment. An LLM helped me put together a marketing model that solves several systems of equations in an afternoon (it would have taken me a lot longer with google).

If you can't figure out how to use this stuff, it's on you at this point.

It's because I recognize that I don't know everything that I can use AI effectively.

> I know how to write and use a computer, think, walk and chew bubble-gum.

Case in point, you think you're a master of one thing so therefor AI is useless. You can lead a horse to water vibes.

I get it, it's cool to shit on AI because it "makes mistakes." But if you're making this criticism, you should probably at least try to use the tools.

I think these reactions come from a place of fear personally. People are afraid that AI is going to take their job, so they *make sure* that it can't do everything their job requires and then use that break point as evidence that AI is shit. It can't literally put these pipes together! It can't write this program perfectly from scratch! Not like me!

These people have no idea how to use AI. If you want to know how to use AI, talk to a chess player - preferably a master. You have a lot to learn.

The bottom line is that these tools are massively useful. And to deny it, at this point, it just makes you sound like a fucking moron.

Of course you'll never draw a causal link between the online bullying he received from Kramnik and his sycophants, but it's impossible to deny it was related. Just go look at his podcast appearances a few weeks/months ago. He was spending a ton of effort just trying to clear his name from the Kramnik witch hunt, and he looked wrung out.

It's a real shame. Very young, very talented. A great influence in the chess world.

>"TheStatsMan" doesn't think more accurate prediction helps improve things.

Yeah, that's right. My life's work is prediction. And yet the statement I made is still true.

>improving society's ability to identify likely outcomes

If only people got rich for improving society instead of ... this.

And before you push up your glass and snort, I urge you to consider why prediction is in fact not a necessary condition to improve anything.