Sure, but the omniprevalence of LLMs just just crystallized these into clearly recognizable patterns. Just like cliches, but not being limited to simple phrases.
> I've been getting this weekly from colleagues. It's very much an epidemic right now! And the port number is indeed almost always a random number between 8000 and 8100.
Really? A bit hard to believe, unless you have many dumb colleagues.
Not sure about dumb, but "not giving a shit" for sure. I routinely see tickets with markdown links to files on their local filesystem, drives me insane how someone can pull shit like this with a straight face.
It's a very heavy hammer. I used it in the way you describe and after double-checking noticed some crucial details were missed and certain facts were subtly misrepresented.
But I agree with you, especially in areas where they have a lot of training data, they can be very useful and save tons of time.
I don't think there's a substitute for reading the source material. You have to read the actual paper that's cited. You have to read the code that's being sourced/generated. But used as a reasoning search engine, it's a huge enabler. I mean so much of research literally is reasoning through piles of existing research. There's probably a large amount of good research (especially the kind that don't easily get grant funding) that can "easily" shake out through existing literature that humans just haven't been able to synthesize correctly.
I upvoted your comment even though I disagree with you.
Yes, LLMs are sloppy, and local models usually more so (but things change fast).
But the local ones have one big advantage: they are private. So you can safely feed them the collection of your private documents and things you wouldn't trust people like sama with. The fact that some people do not care is one of the failures of our educational system.
reply