A tale as old as time. The US nuclear missile codes were 000000, but it didn't matter. The chain of command was purpose-built, ironically, so the front line soldier in a cold war scenario had to make the last decision to delete all life on the planet. Chain of command doesn't matter at that point. You are choosing to kill everyone you know from an order from who knows who. The ultimate checksum.

You will always be better at decisions than an n-dimensional matrix of numbers on an overpriced GPU.

[–] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

You will always be better at decisions than an n-dimensional matrix of numbers on an overpriced GPU.

I'd be careful about these claims. Maybe with our current iteration of "attention-based" LLMs, yes. But keep in mind that our way of processing information is strongly limited compared to how much data is fed to these LLMs while training, so they in theory have a lot more foundation to be able to reason about new problems.

We're vastly more capable at the moment at interpreting our limited view on foreign code, being actually creative, find new ways to reason, yes. Capable developers (open source...) often have seen quite a bit more code than the average developer and are highly skilled, still with just a tiny subset of the code that an LLM has seen.

But say these models improve in creativity and "higher-level of thought" through whatever means (e.g. through more reinforcement learning). Well, let's just say I'm careful with these claims. These LLMs are already quite a help with stupid boilerplaty code (less so with novel stuff, and writing idiomatic non-redundant code, but compared to 2-3 years ago it's quite a step already, to the point that they're actually helpful, disregarding all the hype and obvious marketing strategies of these AI-companies)