stevenhuang

Anyone who has used local LLMs will come to this conclusion.

Too much context confuses the LLM. Reduce unnecessary context and performance improves. Not to mention, too much context and you just run out of vram.

Such limitations may be mitigated in future architectures, but it certainly isn't something you can ignore currently.

Why should it be asinine? The universe is under no obligation to be understandable to humans.

> just to clear space for the things you need to comprehend.

That's really it. I've been finding the same limitations with the default PR code review tools. We currently make do by having a section in our PRs "recommended review order" with a list of files/dirs that should be looked at first, which not only is much smaller Loc than everything else but is the main relevance of the PR.

Within a given project there are inevitably certain files/concepts that are more important, and a better review tool will help emphasize the structure of a large PR to make things easier to review.

I suppose you created a web based front end to GitHub PRs for your team to use? Or is it a local tool? Wondering how yours works.

We use gitlab and there's probably some way to hook up a custom external review tool easily (a bot that posts a link to view the current PR in the tool, for example)

Thanks for the idea!

I wouldn't take stock in what LeCun says. He's already been wrong many times about what LLMs can be capable of.

We're in new grounds, no one knows which way it'll go.

I don't think anyone would particularly care if only one of them is wrong, if most are correct.

If they are all wrong, that's when it would backfire.

At this point it takes some weird epistemics to think they'd need to outright fabricate the outcome of an investigation when countless other mathematical breakthroughs have been solved the same.

They are certainly biased, but I don't think such bias is strong enough to cause them to lie about facts. We may agree to disagree here.

You don't believe OpenAI given their assessment, so it seems you're not operating on evidence in the first place

Also called surprisal minimization in Karl Fristons free energy principle.

If by now you still think it's all just hype, it's safe to say you've succumbed to a mind virus that renders you unable to think critically about AI. Otherwise you'd have some level of awareness of just how far this technology has developed, and you should find these developments more than plausible.

This comment makes no sense. You realize how much lsp is used in other editors like vim/neovim? The existence of lsp is exactly what lets custom editors to flourish. Any language/lsp client can add their own extensions too. Any new editor can come up with it's own way of doing things and implement it on top of lsp, as long as the lsp client supports those extra features then there's no problem. I don't know how you can get it so wrong.

> I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner.

Are you for real?

So it moves from both "my implementation and specification is incorrect", to just "my specification is incorrect".

I don't understand this type of thinking. Proving what you can is still better. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.