you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

If you are using a generator that combines everything (both bad and good) on the net, you will end right on the middle. If everyone that's lazy uses the same method, your work becomes the definition of mediocre.

Nothing wrong with mediocre, I mean the corporate world is full of mediocrity and that's what is expected in assignments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    That assumes that there is no effective way to filter good from bad. But there is - both automated heuristics and manual training does this.

    LLMs absolutely produce mediocre output in some ways, but it's not an inherent limitation caused by them "averaging" the internet. If that were the case there'd be a lot more typos, emojis and internet lingo by default. The fact that LLMs have these instantly recognisable stock ways of writing and stock phrases is a simple way of seeing that they don't simply produce "average" output in that very naive sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Do you even know what the word heuristic means? A heuristic is something that is just good enough. Not great, not perfect, just good enough to get the job done.

    Heuristic algorithms were always going to result in LLMs that were only just good enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose.

    Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments