[fingerlocks]

Try to use an LLM to a solve a novel problem or within a domain that can’t easily be googled.

It will just spew over-confident sycophantic vomit. There is no attempt to reason. It’s all worthless nonsense.

It’s a fancy regurgitation machine and that will go completely off the rails when it steps outside of it’s training area. That’s it.

[threethirtytwo]

I’ve seen it solve a complex domain specific problem and build a basis of code in 10 minutes what took a year for a human to do. And it did it better.

I’ve also seen it fuck up in the same way you describe. So do I weigh and balance these two pieces of contrasting evidence to form a logical conclusion? Or do I pick and choose one of pieces of evidence that is convenient to my world view? What should I do? Actually why don’t you tell me what you ended up doing?