Hey, machine learning is fine. It's LLMs that are the problem.
"Fuck you, I do what you tell me!"
Machine learning is cool though and has its uses. LLMs.... not so much.
LLMs are machine learning, and they don't even necessarily need to be used for language generation; you can set LLMs on other NLP problems like sentiment analysis, etc.
But somewhat agreed with the overall sentiment.
Yeah, I meant that the LLM subset of ML is significantly less useful than other types of ML.
To me, GPTs are mainly problematic in the hands of the general public; I see no reason why they can't be extremely useful in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. And I don't buy the "well you have to verify what they're saying" argument, because hence "someone who knows what they're doing": you want to take NP problems that are inherently hard to solve but easy to verify. GPTs are stochastic just like any form of ML, and you need to use them accordingly.
I don't use them personally, but that's because I have a decade of experience researching and can usually find what I need to in one go – usually weird, one-off stuff. On the other hand, a GPT set on specific problems rather than trying to be a general Q&A machine etc. is probably/I think has shown to be extremely useful for researchers who know what they're doing with it.
I said I somewhat agree with your sentiment mainly because I think you're conflating useful and problematic.
Love their song "Bools on Parade".
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind
Share shirts that go hard.
Community Rules
1) Be nice and have fun.
Site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them. 2) No racism, xenophobia, sexism, supremacism, sexualization of minors, rape content, or gore.
3) No AI Generated Content of any kind.
AI generated content of any kind is not allowed in this community; as decided by the community of July 2025
Thank you.
