circuscritic

I can't speak to Trump's rationale, but know of at least one instance where a MOAB was substituted for the normal ordinance in theatre because it was approaching it service rated shelf life.

Explosive ordinance has a shelf life, and once they're expired, they either need to be taken out of supply for servicing, or dismantled and disposed of.

Please read the many write-ups by developers of well regarded privacy and security ROMs, such as grapheneOS and divestOS.

Who detail in great length why root access is a bad idea, and why many apps that require root access, are just poorly developed security nightmares.

That said, I agree that it should be an option, or at least a standardized means of enabling it. As well as all bootloaders should be unlockable. But phones are more personal devices than the PC ever was, and there are good reasons NOT to push for the proliferation of standardized root access.

I mean, it probably will eventually, but that has nothing to do with LLMs, nor is it a technology that I want to exist.

I can definitely see a world where lobbyists for automakers and insurance companies create such a financial and regulatory burden, where only the wealthy can afford to drive their own cars, if they choose to. Where as everyone else must rent or lease their self driving car as is if it's a IaaS or SaaS subscription.

But none of that has anything to do with using LLMs for the tasks they can accomplish, or telling people to stop bitching about them not being able to complete the tasks they aren't good at, or even capable of.

Yes and no, I have self-hosted models on one of my Linux boxes, but even with a relatively modern 70 series Nvidia GPU, it's still faster to use free non-local services like ChatGPT or DDG.

My rule of thumb for SaaS LLMs is to never enter in any data that I wouldn't also be willing to upload cleartext to Google Drive or OneDrive.

Sometimes that means modifying text before submitting it, and other times having to rely entirely on self-hosted tools.

Llama is the model I use most often, followed by ChatGPT and Claude.

Others as well, but yes, it is incredible helpful for the tasks I use it for.

Weasel phrase? You mean the fact that I don't treat them like their actual Ai, but just a tool that needs to be used properly, monitored, and verified?

There's a reason why I never call them AI, because they're not. They're just advanced machine learning tools, and just like I keep a steady hand when using a table saw, I only use LLMs for tasks that they can help me do something faster, but are easy to verify they did it right.

And as someone who has been using them very regularly, I feel confident in saying that. It's not a weasel phrase, I'm not trying to sell anyone snake oil about what they can actually do, and I acknowledge that they're an oversold and overhyped means of cooking the planet faster, so it's not like I would be mad if they were banned tomorrow, but until then, I will keep using them in ways that are actually fruitful.

But sure, if all you need to do is find one word in a single body of text, that's not really a good use of an LLM, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

If I need examples of various legal or ethical concerns documented in one, or multiple, pieces of writing, or other conceptual topics, I can give it a list, and then ask it to highlight all examples of those issues, and include the verbatim text where their present. I can then give that same task to a multiple different LLMs, with the same prompts, and a task that would have taken me hours to complete, takes me 30 to 45 minutes, including the time it takes me to give it quick read through see if anything was missed. But yeah, that requires a well crafted prompt, and it's not infallible.

Replace belt sander with CBD. A compound with very real and tangible benefits for specific use cases, but is marketed as a modern day snake oil cure all.

Imagine seeing people regularly complaining on bluelight, erowid, or whatever forums educated drug users frequent these days, bitching that CBD didn't cure their asthma, or STDs, so therefore it has no medical value.

They know it's a tool, yet they keep complaining about how the gas station CBD isn't magic and failed to cure their gonorrhea, even though they already knew it was never going to be able to, no matter what the packaging said.

But my analogy wasn't meant to be critically analyzed and dissected, it was a throwaway example to highlight the problem of people on Lemmy, who actually know better, but keep whinging about LLM's providing bogus URLs for citations, etc.

I'm not advocating for openai, their business model, or the environmental and financial cost benefit of current LLM technology.

They suck, it's dogshit, and it's not worth cooking the planet for.

I also don't disagree about the very real possibility that the average user may actually get dumber and more misinformed by relying on LLMs.

But we're on Lemmy, and I'm just tired of all these comments incessantly complaining about about how LLM's can't do x,y, or z.

Imagine being on a carpentry forum, and every day people complained about how their new belt sander was dogshit at cutting 2x4's or screwing in fasteners, so clearly the problem was with the concept of belt sander technology.

It's not a peer-reviewed journal or academic level source, and shouldn't be used as that.

But if I need to find some technical or scientific writings on a subject, but I don't know the correct nomenclature or need a more narrow set of keywords, that is something I can describe to the LLM and get back.

The keywords in their response can help me then hunt down the journal article or papers that I need using traditional search engines. I'm not just brainstorming here, this is something I do often enough to find real utility in it.

Again, these are problems that can be solved with traditional search engines, but at the cost of time and frustration sifting though every potential result.

You can spit out a hundred more examples of what an LLM can't do, but as I already said, they're not magic, just tools.

Your experience highlights what current iterations of LLMs are not well suited for, so I understand if that's what you were hoping to achieve, why you were left wanting, or disillusioned.

There's a lot of things that LLMs are really good at, or incredibly useful for, such as ingesting large bodies of text, and then analyzing them based on your ability to create well thought out prompts.

This can save you hours and hours, of reading time, and it's something that you can verify the answer on relatively quickly, to double check the LLMs response accuracy.

They're also good at doing something Google used to be good at, but sucks at now. Which enabling you to describe process, simple or complicated, short or long, that you either can't recall the name of, or aren't even sure where it's called, and letting you know exactly what it is. Also, easily verifiable.

There's plenty of other things too, but just remember that they are tools, not magic, or sentient intelligence.

The models are not real time, but there are tricks to figure out it's most recent dates of ingestion, such as asking topical entertainment or news questions, but don't go looking for a real-time information.

Also, I have yet to find a model that can provide an actual URL and specific source for anything it generates, which is why it's a good practice to use them to do tasks, or get information, that would take you longer to do, or get, manually, but that can be easily verified once you receive it.

That sounds like the typical modern LinkedIn/marketing spin on, "it's punk rock to do 18 jobs at the same time... without benefits... also, your arbitration clause says you can't sue us for knowingly feeding you asbestos".

Mostly horseshit clickbait. They are both in a lower security dormitory style lockup at the same holding facility e.g. large room with a lot of bunk beds.

...Combs began living in the same unit as Bankman-Fried and sleeping in a “dormitory-style” room with a number of other defendants last week after he was arrested...