(I keep delivering this as a quip, here's a bit more) First order of business - is 'tool' going to have an interesting, distinguishing and thus illuminative meaning or be a mere platitudinous stand-in for "anything useful"? We'll save tool as "anyone/thing that can be exploited" for the AI titans, f
Dude, what you give LLM is not instructions. It doesn’t follow your instructions. It brings you back what might look like you want.
A CPU, on the other hand, carries out the instructions exactly like you’ve said.
There is no way to avoid incorrect answers from LLM. It’s probablistic; there is always a chance of getting a wrong answer no matter how you improve it. With a CPU, you can reduce errors by improving the design. It’s based on physics; it’s logical.
I advice you to stop treating LLMs as blackboxes and only observe it from the outside. You’ll never notice the difference if the error rate is low enough.
Dude, what you give LLM is not instructions. It doesn’t follow your instructions. It brings you back what might look like you want.
A CPU, on the other hand, carries out the instructions exactly like you’ve said.
There is no way to avoid incorrect answers from LLM. It’s probablistic; there is always a chance of getting a wrong answer no matter how you improve it. With a CPU, you can reduce errors by improving the design. It’s based on physics; it’s logical.
I advice you to stop treating LLMs as blackboxes and only observe it from the outside. You’ll never notice the difference if the error rate is low enough.
Of course, an LLM is a probability machine which outputs the most likely next token based on the tokens you give it.
I’m not sure why that doesn’t make it a tool though. The output of this probability machine can be useful if you know what you’re doing.