This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The average literacy level is around that of a sixth grader.
This tracks
I'm surprised it's not way more than half. Almost every subjective thing I read about LLMs oversimplifies how they work and hugely overstates their capabilities.
This is hard to quantify. I use them constantly throughout my work day now.
Are they smarter than me? I'm not sure. Haven't thought too much about it.
What they certainly are, and by a long shot, is faster. Given a set of data, I could analyze it and pull out insights and conclusions. It might take me a week or a month depending on the size and breadth of the data set. An LLM can pull out insights and conclusions in seconds.
I can read error stacks coming from my code, but before I've even read the first few lines the LLM has ingested all of them, checked the code, and reached a conclusion about the necessary fix. Is it right, optimal, and avoid creating other bugs? Like 75% at this point. I can coax it, interate on the solution my self, or do it entirely myself with the understanding of the bug that it granted me. This same bug might have taken hours to figure out myself.
My point is, I'm not sure how to compare smarter vs orders of magnitude faster.
I believe LLMs are smarter than half of US adults
LLM is proof that even if you're extremely stupid, having access to information can still make you sound smart.
AI is essentially the human superid. No one man could ever be more knowledgeable. Being intelligent is a different matter.
Is stringing words together really considered knowledge?
If they're strung together correctly then yeah.
As much as a search engine is
It's semantics. The difference between an llm and "asking" wikipedia a knowledge question is that the llm will "answer" you with predictive text. Both things contain more knowledge than you do, as in they have answers to more trivia and test questions than you ever will.
I guess I can see that, maybe my understanding of words or their implication is incorrect. While I would agree they contain more knowledge I guess that reads different to me than being more knowledgeable. I think that maybe it comes across as anthropomorphizing a dataset of information to me. I could easily be wrong.
That is the problem with US adults. Half of them probably is dumber than AI.....
The grammatical error here is chef's kiss.
What a very unfortunate name for a university.
It's probably true too.
That's called a self-proving statement.
If we are talking about American adults, I guess they might be right.
It’s like asking if you think a calculator is smarter than you.
„It‘s totally a lot smarter than I am, no way could I deliver (234 * 534)^21 as confidently!“
Are you suggesting my 90's calculator is smarter than LLM's?
Hard to compete with that 90s confidence 😎
"Half of LLM users " beleive this. Which is not to say that people who understand how flawed LLMs are, or what their actual function is, do not use LLMs and therefore arent i cluded in this statistic?
This is kinda like saying '60% of people who pay for their daily horoscope beleive it is an accurate prediction'.
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. Or, rather, the difference between smart and stupid people is how they interpret the knowledge they acquire. Both can acquire knowledge, but stupid people come to wrong conclusions by misinterpreting the knowledge. Like LLMs, 40% of the time, apparently.
My new mental model for LLMs is that they're like genius 4 year olds. They have huge amounts of information, and yet have little to no wisdom as to what to do with it or how to interpret it.
Do the other half believe it is dumber than it actually is?
I suppose some of that comes down to the personal understanding of what "smart" is.
I guess you could call some person, that doesn't understand a topic, but still manages to sound reasonable when talking about it, and might even convince people that they actually have a deep understanding of that topic, "smart", in a kind of "smart imposter".
You say this like this is wrong.
Think of a question that you would ask an average person and then think of what the LLM would respond with. The vast majority of the time the llm would be more correct than most people.
A good example is the post on here about tax brackets. Far more Republicans didn't know how tax brackets worked than Democrats. But every mainstream language model would have gotten the answer right.
I bet the LLMs also know who pays tarrifs
I had to tell a bunch of librarians that LLMs are literally language models made to mimic language patterns, and are not made to be factually correct. They understood it when I put it that way, but librarians are supposed to be "information professionals". If they, as a slightly better trained subset of the general public, don't know that, the general public has no hope of knowing that.
Librarians went to school to learn how to keep order in a library. That does not inherently make them have more information in their heads than the average person, especially regarding things that aren't books and book organization.
It's so weird watching the masses ignore industry experts and jump on weird media hype trains. This must be how doctors felt in Covid.
It's so weird watching the masses ignore industry experts and jump on weird media hype trains.
Is it though?
I'm the expert in this situation and I'm getting tired explaining to Jr Engineers and laymen that it is a media hype train.
I worked on ML projects before they got rebranded as AI. I get to sit in the room when these discussion happen with architects and actual leaders. This is Hype. Anyone who tells you other wise is lying or selling you something.
Wtf is an llm
Large language model. It's what all these AI really are.
