• db0
    link
    fedilink
    English
    761 day ago

    As always, never rely on llms for anything factual. They’re only good with things which have a massive acceptance for error, such as entertainment (eg rpgs)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 day ago

      I tried using it to spit ball ideas for my DMing. I was running a campaign set in a real life location known for a specific thing. Even if I told it to not include that thing, it would still shoe horn it in random spots. It quickly became absolutely useless once I didn’t need that thing included

      Sorry for being vague, I just didn’t want to post my home town on here

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 day ago

      The issue for RPGs is that they have such “small” context windows, and a big point of RPGs is that anything could be important, investigated, or just come up later

      Although, similar to how deepseek uses two stages (“how would you solve this problem”, then “solve this problem following this train of thought”), you could have an input of recent conversations and a private/unseen “notebook” which is modified/appended to based on recent events, but that would need a whole new model to be done properly which likely wouldn’t be profitable short term, although I imagine the same infrastructure could be used for any LLM usage where fine details over a long period are more important than specific wording, including factual things

      • db0
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 day ago

        The problem is that the “train of the thought” is also hallucinations. It might make the model better with more compute but it’s diminishing rewards.

        Rpg can use the llms because they’re not critical. If the llm spews out nonsense you don’t like, you just ask to redo, because it’s all subjective.

    • kat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 day ago

      Or at least as an assistant on a field your an expert in. Love using it for boilerplate at work (tech).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 hours ago

        Do you blindly trust the output or is it just a convenience and you can spot when there’s something wrong? Because I really hope you don’t rely on it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            48 hours ago

            Y’know, a lot of the hate against AI seems to mirror the hate against Wikipedia, search engines, the internet, and even computers in the past.

            Do you just blindly believe whatever it tells you?

            It’s not absolutely perfect, so it’s useless.

            It’s all just garbage information!

            This is terrible for jobs, society, and the environment!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 hours ago

            In which case you probably aren’t saving time. Checking bullshit is usually harder and longer to just research shit yourself. Or should be, if you do due diligence

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              06 hours ago

              Its nice that you inform people that they cant tell if something is saving them time or not without knowing what their job is or how they are using a tool.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                05 hours ago

                If they think AI is working for them then he can. If you think AI is an effective tool for any profession you are a clown. If my son’s preschool teacher used it to make a lesson plan she would be incompetent. If a plumber asked what kind of wrench he needed he would be kicked out of my house. If an engineer of one of my teams uses it to write code he gets fired.

                AI “works” because you’re asking questions you don’t know and it’s just putting words together so they make sense without regard to accuracy. It’s a hard limit of “AI” that we’ve hit. It won’t get better in our lifetimes.