zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
One thing that I find truly amazing is just the simple fact that you can now be fuzzy with the input you give a computer, and get something meaningful in return. Like, as someone who grew up learning to code in the 90s it always seemed like science fiction that we'd get to a point where you could give a computer some vague human level instructions and get it more or less do what you want.

>>gdubs+Z
There's the old quote from Babbage:

> On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

This has been an obviously absurd question for two centuries now. Turns out the people asking that question were just visionaries ahead of their time.

It is kind of impressive how I'll ask for some code in the dumbest, vaguest, sometimes even wrong way, but so long as I have the proper context built up, I can get something pretty close to what I actually wanted. Though I still have problems where I can ask as precisely as possible and get things not even close to what I'm looking for.

>>forgot+zG
> This has been an obviously absurd question for two centuries now. Turns out the people asking that question were just visionaries ahead of their time.

This is not the point of that Babbage quote, and no, LLMs have not solved it, because it cannot be solved, because "garbage in, garbage out" is a fundamental observation of the limits of logic itself, having more to with the laws of thermodynamics than it does with programming. The output of a logical process cannot be more accurate than the inputs to that process; you cannot conjure information out of the ether. The LLM isn't the logical process in this analogy, it's one of the inputs.

>>kibwen+jG1
At a fundamental level, yes, and even in human-to-human interaction this kind of thing happens all the time. The difference is that humans are generally quite good at resolving most ambiguities and contradictions in a request correctly and implicitly (sometimes surprisingly bad at doing so explicitly!). Which is why human language tends to be more flexible and expressive than programming languages (but bad at precision). LLMs basically can do some of the same thing, so you don't need to specify all the 'obvious' implicit details.

>>rcxdud+jK1
The Babbage anecdote isn't about ambiguous inputs, it's about wrong inputs. Imagine wanting to know the answer to 2+2, so you go up to the machine and ask "What is 3+3?", expecting that it will tell you what 2+2 is.

Adding an LLM as input to this process (along with an implicit acknowledgement that you're uncertain about your inputs) might produce a response "Are you sure you didn't mean to ask what 2+2 is?", but that's because the LLM is a big ball of likelihoods and it's more common to ask for 2+2 than for 3+3. But it's not magic; the LLM cannot operate on information that it was not given, rather it's that a lot of the information that it has was given to it during training. It's no more a breakthrough of fundamental logic than Google showing you results for "air fryer" when you type in "air frier".