No the chances of being wrong 10x in a row are 2%. So the chances of being at least right once are 98%.

i find that rust’s architecture and design decisions give the LLM quite good guardrails and kind of keep it from doing anything too wonky. the issue arises in cases like these where the rust ecosystem is quite young and documentation/instruction can be poor, even for a human developer.

i think rust actually is quite well suited to agentic development workflows, it just needs to mature more.

In one case, when an agent couldn't find the right person to consult on RocketChat (an open-source Slack alternative for internal communication), it decided "to create a shortcut solution by renaming another user to the name of the intended user."

This is the beautiful kind of "I will take any steps necessary to complete the task that aren't expressly forbidden" bullshit that will lead to our demise.

It does not say a dog can not play basketball.

I think it's lemmy users. I see a lot more LLM skepticism here than in the news feeds.

In my experience, LLMs are like the laziest, shittiest know-nothing bozo forced to complete a task with zero attention to detail and zero care about whether it's crap, just doing enough to sound convincing.

Emotion > Facts. Most people have been trained to blindly accept things and cheer on what fits with their agenda. Like technbro's exaggerating LLMs, or people like you misrepresenting LLMs as mere statistical word generators without intelligence. That's like saying a computer is just wires and switches, or missing the forest for the trees. Both is equally false.

Yet if it fits with the emotional needs or with dogma, then other will agree. It's a convenient and comforting "A vs B" worldview we've been trained to accept. And so the satisfying notion and misinformation keeps spreading.

LLMs tell us more about human intelligence and the human slop we've been generating. It tells us that most people are not that much more than statistical word generators.

Wdym, I have seen researchers using it to aid their research significantly. You just need to verify some stuff it says.

Verify every single bloody line of output. Top three to five are good, then it starts guessing the rest based on the pattern so far. If I wanted to make shit up randomly, I would do it myself.

People who trust LLMs to tell them things that are right rather than things that sound right have fundamentally misunderstood what an LLM is and how it works.

"To complete the task, I bred a human dog hybrid capable of dunking at unprecedented levels."

I'd just like to point out that, from the perspective of somebody watching AI develop for the past 10 years, completing 30% of automated tasks successfully is pretty good! Ten years ago they could not do this at all. Overlooking all the other issues with AI, I think we are all irritated with the AI hype people for saying things like they can be right 100% of the time -- Amazon's new CEO actually said they would be able to achieve 100% accuracy this year, lmao. But being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.

Thing is, they might achieve 99% accuracy given the speed of progress. Lots of brainpower is getting poured into LLMs.
Honestly, it is soo scary. It could be replacing me...

"Where are my balls Summer?"

It's not that bad, the output isn't random.
Time to time, it can produce novel stuffs like new equations for engineering.
Also, verification does not take that much effort. At least according to my colleagues, it is great.
Also works well for coding well-known stuffs, as well!

If that’s the quality of answer you’re getting, then it’s a user error

No, I know the data I gave it and I know how hard I tried to get it to use it truthfully.

You have an irrational and wildly inaccurate belief in the infallibility of LLMs.

You're also denying the evidence of my own experience. What on earth made you think I would believe you over what I saw with my own eyes?

You probably wanted to show off how smart you are, but instead you showed that you can't even talk to people without help of your favourite slop bucket.
It didn't answer my curiosity about what came first, but it solidified my conviction that your brain is cooked all the way, probably beyond repair. I would say you need to seek professional help, but at this point you would interpret it as needing to talk to the autocomplete, and it will cook you even more.
It started funny, but I feel very sorry for you now, and it sucked all the humour out.

I actually have a fairly positive experience with ai ( copilot using claude specificaly ). Is it wrong a lot if you give it a huge task yes, so i dont do that and using as a very targeted solution if i am feeling very lazy today . Is it fast . Also not . I could actually be faster than ai in some cases.
But is it good if you are working for 6h and you just dont have enough mental capacity for the rest of the day. Yes . You can just prompt it specificaly enough to get desired result and just accept correct responses. Is it always good ,not really but good enough. Do i also suck after 3pm . Yes.
My main issue is actually the fact that it saves first and then asks you to pick if you want to use it. Not a problem usualy but if it crashes the generated code stays so that part sucks

Why are you giving it data. It's a chat and language tool. It's not data based. You need something trained to work for that specific use. I think Wolfram Alpha has better tools for that.

I wouldn't trust it to calculate how many patio stones I need to build a project. But I trust it to tell me where a good source is on a topic or if a quote was said by who ever or if I need to remember something but I only have vague pieces like old timey historical witch burning related factoid about villagers who pulled people through a hole in the church wall or what was a the princess who was skeptic and sent her scientist to villages to try to calm superstitious panic .

Other uses are like digging around my computer and seeing what processes do what. How concepts work regarding the think I'm currently learning. So many excellent users. But I fucking wouldn't trust it to do any kind of calculation.

Ah, my bad, you're right, for being consistently correct, I should have done 0.3^10=0.0000059049

so the chances of it being right ten times in a row are less than one thousandth of a percent.

No wonder I couldn't get it to summarise my list of data right and it was always lying by the 7th row.