On 1/12/25 7:46 PM, M. Zhou wrote: > So what I was talking is simply a choice among the two: > 1. A contributor who needs help can leverage LLM for its immediate response > and > help even if it only correct, for 30% of the time. It requires the > contributor > to have knowledge and skill to properly use this new technology. > 2. A contributor who needs help has to wait for a real human for indefinite > time > period, but the correctness is above 99$. > > The existing voice chose the second one. I want to mention that "waiting for > a real > human for help on XXX for indefinite time" was a bad experience when I was a > new comer. > The community not agreeing on using that new technology to aid such pain > point, > seems understandable to me.
No-one is stopped from using any of the free offers. I don't think we need our own chat bot. Of course that means, in turn, that we give up on feeding it domain-specific knowledge and our own prompt. But that's... probably fine? If those LLMs support that, one could still produce a guide on how to feed more interesting data into it - or provide a LoRA. It's not like inference requires a GPU. But then again saying things like "oh, look, I could easily answer the NM templates with this" is the context you want to put this work in. Kind regards Philipp Kern
