> I understand it's 'just' a language model, but it doesn't matter - that's not how it's perceived
For me, this is what gets exhausting. It is an impressive language model, and it is going to change a lot of things, but it isn't the Apocalypse and it isn't the Messiah. On HN I expect a certain level of technical understanding that is weirdly absent on this topic.
An example: every time the question of accuracy comes up people seriously suggest that you just need to prompt it for its sources. Or we just need to improve the training data. There's no recognition that there are tasks that a language model is just fundamentally unsuitable for.
For me, this is what gets exhausting. It is an impressive language model, and it is going to change a lot of things, but it isn't the Apocalypse and it isn't the Messiah. On HN I expect a certain level of technical understanding that is weirdly absent on this topic.
An example: every time the question of accuracy comes up people seriously suggest that you just need to prompt it for its sources. Or we just need to improve the training data. There's no recognition that there are tasks that a language model is just fundamentally unsuitable for.