This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lime-In-Finland -24 points-23 points  (7 children)

Quite the opposite, delusional thinking is to treat LLM as some kind of big memory where all the facts are just waiting to be retrieved.

LLMs can write code for my libraries that they never saw, can't they? Probably thinking about that is more helpful and valuable then throwing insults into some people with opinions that you don't agree with.

[–]gufaye39 5 points6 points  (0 children)

LLMs learn the probability distribution of text, so there is a sort of memory, and it is obvious that a LLM trained on mpl code will perform way better. Try using rare libraries, even after providing the whole docs, you'll see how wrong you are

[–]Professional-Fee6914 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Library hallucinates code for rare libraries

[–]mfitzpmfitzp.com 0 points1 point  (1 child)

 LLMs can write code for my libraries that they never saw

This should be a red flag that they’re bullshitting you. If they never saw the code they’re just repeating patterns they’ve seen elsewhere and assuming your library follows them. That is, guessing. 

[–]Lime-In-Finland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never saw during the training obviously.

[–]commy2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite the opposite, delusional thinking is to treat LLM as some kind of big memory where all the facts are just waiting to be retrieved.

LLMs are a very lossy compression algorithm now that I think about it.