> It's like the world has suddenly shifted from valuing deterministic, precise, behaviors to preferring this sort of "close enough, good enough" cavalier attitude to everything.
Framing this as a tradeoff is a mistake rather than having two different tools for two different jobs. For ex: there are scenarios where can do part of Google's job or Wikipedia's job sufficiently well, but when being deterministic is what matters then obviously we still have Google and other manual knowledge bank processes.
They aren't going away or being abandoned. They are being supplemented. And since LLMs are so new it's mostly just a matter of the market figuring out where each tool fits into our lives. It's mostly a misconception/marketing that it is a replacement for stuff like search engines or human-backed processes.
But even doing 25% of what Google can do but better + another 25-50% it couldn't do before is a massive business and a huge boon for society.
Framing this as a tradeoff is a mistake rather than having two different tools for two different jobs. For ex: there are scenarios where can do part of Google's job or Wikipedia's job sufficiently well, but when being deterministic is what matters then obviously we still have Google and other manual knowledge bank processes.
They aren't going away or being abandoned. They are being supplemented. And since LLMs are so new it's mostly just a matter of the market figuring out where each tool fits into our lives. It's mostly a misconception/marketing that it is a replacement for stuff like search engines or human-backed processes.
But even doing 25% of what Google can do but better + another 25-50% it couldn't do before is a massive business and a huge boon for society.