> All they do is regurgitate text which resembles a continuation of what came before, and sometimes—but with zero guarantees—that text aligns with reality.
You mean like us? Because it takes many runs and debug rounds to make anything that works. Can you write a complex code top-to-bottom in one round, or do you gradually test it to catch bugs you have "hallucinated"?
Both humans and LLMs get into bugs, the question is can we push this to the correct solution or get permanently stuck along the way? And this depends on feedback, sometimes access to a testing environment where we can't let AI run loose.
Not, not like us. This constant comparison of LLMs to humans is tiresome and unproductive. I’m not a proponent of human exceptionalism, but pretending LLMs are on par is embarrassing. If you want to claim your thinking ability isn’t any better than an LLM, that’s your prerogative, but the dullest human I’m acquainted with is still capable of remembering and thinking through in a way no LLM does. Heck, I can think of pets which do better.
> Can you write a complex code top-to-bottom in one round, or do you gradually test it to catch bugs you have "hallucinated"?
I certainly don’t make up methods which don’t exist, nor do I insist over and over they are valid, nor do I repeat “I’m sorry, this was indeed not right” then say the same thing again. I have never “hallucinated” a feature then doubled down when confronted with proof it doesn’t exist, nor have I ever shifted my approach entirely because someone simply said the opposite without explanation. I certainly hope you don’t do that either.
They are on par on many tasks, surpass us in some tasks, and catching up on the rest quite fast. Both humans and LLMs forget details, both have to go through iterative bug fixing when creating something. Longer contexts and memory are coming, they already exist but need improvement.
> I have never “hallucinated” a feature
You never mistook an argument, or forgot one of the 100 details we have to mind while writing complex apps?
I would rather measure humans vs AI not in basic skill capability but in authonomy. I think AI still has much more to catch up on that front.
You mean like us? Because it takes many runs and debug rounds to make anything that works. Can you write a complex code top-to-bottom in one round, or do you gradually test it to catch bugs you have "hallucinated"?
Both humans and LLMs get into bugs, the question is can we push this to the correct solution or get permanently stuck along the way? And this depends on feedback, sometimes access to a testing environment where we can't let AI run loose.