upvote
> We "literally" couldn't design programs to do the interesting things LLMs can do.

That's a bit of an overstatement.

The entire field of ML is aimed at problems where deterministic code would work just fine, but the amount of cases it would need to cover is too large to be practical (note, this has nothing to do with the impossibility of its design) AND there's a sufficient corpus of data that allows plausible enough models to be trained. So we accept the occasionally questionable precision of ML models over the huge time and money costs of engineering these kinds of systems the traditional way. LLMs are no different.

reply
Saying ML is a field where deterministic code would work just fine conveniently leaves out the difficult part - writing the actual code.... Which we haven't been able to do for most of the tasks at hand.

What you are saying is fantasy nonsense.

reply
They did not leave it out.

> but the amount of cases it would need to cover is too large to be practical (note, this has nothing to do with the impossibility of its design)

reply
> would work just fine, but the amount of cases it would need to cover is too large to be practical

So it doesn't work.

reply
And all you have to do is write an infinite amount of code to cover all possible permutations of reality! No big deal, really.
reply
[flagged]
reply
I'm a psychiatry resident who has been into ML since... at least 2017. I even contemplated leaving medicine for it in 2022 and studied for that, before realizing that I'd never become employable (because I could already tell the models were getting faster than I am).

You would be sorely mistaken to think I'm utterly uninformed about LLM-research, even if I would never dare to claim to be a domain expert.

reply