you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

What the example shows is that you cannot "teach" the llm how to count the letter R, because LLMs don't work that way.

The AI company would have to solve the problem another way, let's say by recognizing that the user is asking for letter-counting, and pass that off to a different kind of algorithm that can count letters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Yes, and that’s called a harness, which everyone uses these days. The harness increases perceived intelligence (or accuracy) by absurd amounts. You can “teach” (or the equivalent of) LLMs anything with a custom harness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    yes lets have the llm be a blurry frontend for a bunch of invisible proprietary harness programs. that surely is a valuable human endeavor

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    How is it teaching? Sounds like programming to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Well the idea is you don’t need to code it yourself, you can have it do it for you. Sure it’ll have bugs the first few times, but humans also make mistakes the until they get the hang of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    The difference i guess is that humans are capable of learning and producing better code as they become more expert at it.

    The big tech companies are surely trying to improve AI with these "harnesses" as you call them, and you can try vibe coding them yourself.

    But it seems to me like spending a lot of time adding features to a technology to try to catch edge cases, but the edge cases will never end, and you'll never be able to use it for anything except rough approximations or bullshit

  • source
  • parent