* Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> <86o6xsgt6s....@gnu.org> Wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 08:24:59 +0200 > Not the models with which I have the experience, no. They would be > useless for me if they did that. Because I have real hared problems > to solve, and they must be solved correctly and better than the > alternative methods which are not based on LLM, when compared by some > meaningful metrics.
Are you talking of LLMs or of other ML models? I can readily understand what youre saying if the domain is say OCR or similar, where the inputs and outputs are clearly definable. > And even in other, much simpler, cases this is not so IME. Consider > the "text completion" feature, for example, which is present in many > tools (including Emacs, but in Emacs it is not based on LLM): you type > text and the application offers you likely completions based on what > you typed till now. If the completion is not what you intend to > write, why would you "have no choice but accept"? You just keep > typing instead of pressing TAB to accept. I believe much of the hype and banking fraud about LLMs revolves around the plan to get the endtimes population to accept the decision-making made on their behalf by those who govern them but through an unassailable unquestionable intermediary, without directly implicating the authority which governs them. --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
