>It's having a general understanding/view of the "baseline", aka healthy anatomy. This is something LLMs will never have
You're making the mistake of conflating AI with LLMs.
I don't think LLMs will reliably be better than a board of doctors. But an Expert System probably will (if it isn't already). That's literally what they were created for.
The biggest downside of LLMs IMO isn't the millions of Jules wasted on training models that are ultimately used to create funny images of cats with lasers. It's that all that money isn't being invested into truly helpful AI systems that will actually improve and save our lives, such as medical expert systems.
If something has several clear positive effects, and a possible small, arguably irrelevant, negative effect, most people will agree that yes, it's good for you.
It's like trying to argue that running may have a negative effect on some people's meniscus under some specific circumstances. That doesn't negate the generalization "running is good for you".
One of my pet peeves with git (and systems both similar, and based on it) is that automated tests run after you've made the commit and push.
In my mind the commit (let alone the push to a publicly accesible server) should be done after, and only if, the automated tests are successfully executed. And there's no easy way to implement this, other than having a dirty branch that you discard after rebasing onto a more long lived one.
You get the starter by leaving flour and water at room temperature for several days. Once the starter is ready, it's just more flour and water, plus additional ingredients (salt, seeds, olive oil, etc) sitting for several hours until it's ready to go in the oven.
I've followed sourdough recipes that were extremely complicated, which required me doing task every few hours for 3 days (so no way to do it if you have a regular job). But at the most basic level sourdough is just a fermented mixture of flour and water that is then cooked.
> and left all their code available, as required by OSS.
IANAL, and I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's required by OSS, not by the spirit of "the law", and (at least) not by GPL, MIT, and other similar mainstream licenses.
The spirit of open source is: you buy (or just download for free) a binary, you get the 4 rights. Whatever happens when the developer/company stops distributing (whether at a cost or free as in beer) that binary is completely outside the scope of the license.
I used to love HN. Lots of interesting stuff, great articles, novel projects. Now it feels like the frontpage is always around 70% LLM-related stuff. And not breakthrough research or projects, just "new Claude version X" and shit like that. Eternal September I guess?
>They banned the_donald (which, yes, was spammy, but it seemed to be organic
I used to frequent /r/t_d when it was created, before the Republican primaries for the 2016 election. I visited every day because I was absolutely astonished at the gigantic marketing effort behind it. I had never seen anything like that before, and haven't since. It probably had a team of dozens or hundreds of Russians behind it, creating memes and shitposting on a payroll. And it obviously was 100% inorganic.
Muchrooms have mycotoxins too. And red meat is a carcinogen. And predator fish have plenty of heavy metals. And the list goes on and on. Yet we eat all those things. Hence the "net positive".
How sure are we about this? How certain are we that those specific species of mold have a net negative effect, rather than a net positive (like for example mushrooms)? Penicillium grows on stale foods and I doubt eating it would have a net negative effect.
If human knowledge were a pyramid, LLMs just make the pyramid flatter, i.e. shorter, wider at the bottom, and narrower at the tip. It makes Humans dumber.
That's because you aren't combining it with more advanced commands, or macros.
"10j" may sound useless. But "y10j50jp" is much more effective. Put that in a macro that does other stuff too, and suddenly you perform complex editions to a file containing thousands of lines of text in a few seconds.
> This is why it's impossible to create a digital assistant, or really anything useful, via Markov Chain. The fact that they only generate sequences that existed in the source mean that it will never come up with anything creative.
Or, in other words, a Markov Chain won't hallucinate.
Having a system that only repeats sentences from it's source material and doesn't create anything new on its own is quite useful on some scenarios.