Code is probably one of the easiest things to verify, for that reason I struggle to see any other viable uses for LLMs tbh.
user: write code that correctly asserts what 1+1equals.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 4);
LLM: hmmm, that crashed.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 3);
LLM: hmmm, that also crashed, I must be doing something wrong, letmetry one more time.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
LLM: that worked!
LLM Response: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
user: what does this sentence mean? "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
LLM Response: This doesn't mean anything, or someone really likes buffalo's
I can always run the code to check, I still don’t know how that sentence makes sense.
I am a software engineer by trade, so biases’ being what they are. But what I was more trying to demonstrate is that it is provable. Not that making the proof is easy.
Code is probably one of the easiest things to verify, for that reason I struggle to see any other viable uses for LLMs tbh.
user: write code that correctly asserts what 1+1 equals. LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 4); LLM: hmmm, that crashed. LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 3); LLM: hmmm, that also crashed, I must be doing something wrong, let me try one more time. LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2); LLM: that worked! LLM Response: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);user: what does this sentence mean? "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" LLM Response: This doesn't mean anything, or someone really likes buffalo'sI can always run the code to check, I still don’t know how that sentence makes sense.
LOL!!!
I am a software engineer by trade, so biases’ being what they are. But what I was more trying to demonstrate is that it is provable. Not that making the proof is easy.