The problem is that they are 'everything boxes'. They're the first application that can actually lay claim to being a universal computing aid. What then happens is that people will start using their newfound hammer and before you know it everything becomes a nail, even if for a particular problem there is a better solution you can't beat 'nothing to invest, nothing to learn, get an answer in 10 seconds flat' from a convenience perspective. If I look at the things people use LLMs for I wonder why they take such an unsuitable tool, and then I marvel at the fact that they actually get more-or-less to where they would have gotten with the proper tools, and most likely in less time.
Slide rules displaced tables, calculators displaced slide rules and calculators themselves were displaced for the most part (they are still in use, in education but not nearly as much as they used to be outside of that) by the PC.
LLMs do that sort of thing for just about every information processing aid.
LLMs should be for general/high level work. For example, an LLM with the right harness could fetch and use that CNN, or train it's own CNN or other model to use for this task.
The harness in my experience makes a huge different too. Out of curiosity I tried having Gemini chat (with Argon) try to solve a level of this new puzzle game I'm linking (Order of the Sinking Star). It just got in an infinite loop and crashed. Then I try Antigravity with Flash 3.8 and it solved it easily. I saw the harness looked at other sokoban puzzles, coded some stuff, tried to replicate the level, etc. All things that a pure Gemini Chat doesn't really do.
LLMs are great for the high level harness, but if you want to count letters for example, it will still rely on "tools" like a piece of code to do it more reliably. Similarly in the above example, you wouldn't have the LLM directly try to analyze the images, but instead fetch and use the best tool for the job. But that can only be as good as the harness/tools it has access to.
This does make sense, however in view of the recent maths results and since there are tens of thousands of training images for skin cancer available on the public internet I was expecting the LLMs to perform a lot better than they did
That's just semantics around the word "performance".
We're messaging each other right now inside a heavily sandboxed virtual environment that interprets XML-like markup and runs a text-based JITted scripting language from the 90s. It doesn't really matter that it's extremely inefficient, since it's still effectively instant.
Actually not. Watt per task is a metric bothers more than LLM operators and users. We care about it a lot, and working a lot to measure and improve it, and we're not doing it in context of AI or LLMs.
Effectively instant means nothing, since everything is fast for small n. I love to give this example from a codebase I have worked on during my Ph.D. The problem which took half an hour under Matlab was done in ~40 seconds with mine, however, a thousand-step version of the same problem would take 11 hours. Saving a single second from that 40 second loop would shave my work by ~20 minutes, and this will compound for bigger problems still.
Just because we see the results instantly, doesn't mean it's fast or efficient by any means. It means we might forego optimizing it for sufficiently small n, if we don't care about that part of the code. That's all.
> The watts per task is abysmal compared to a desk calculator.
It depends on the calculator and task at hand. Consider graphing, integration or any programmable needs, and they might converge. ALU of a processor is pretty efficient at what it does.
> The app is less efficient only in an abstract, impractical way.
Again, depends, as I said above. You tend to brush efficiency away because you only mentally measure time to completion, only, which is understandable.
In a world where masses believe that LLMs are "everything boxes", some reality check is always good.
The problem is that they are 'everything boxes'. They're the first application that can actually lay claim to being a universal computing aid. What then happens is that people will start using their newfound hammer and before you know it everything becomes a nail, even if for a particular problem there is a better solution you can't beat 'nothing to invest, nothing to learn, get an answer in 10 seconds flat' from a convenience perspective. If I look at the things people use LLMs for I wonder why they take such an unsuitable tool, and then I marvel at the fact that they actually get more-or-less to where they would have gotten with the proper tools, and most likely in less time.
Slide rules displaced tables, calculators displaced slide rules and calculators themselves were displaced for the most part (they are still in use, in education but not nearly as much as they used to be outside of that) by the PC.
LLMs do that sort of thing for just about every information processing aid.
LLMs should be for general/high level work. For example, an LLM with the right harness could fetch and use that CNN, or train it's own CNN or other model to use for this task.
The harness in my experience makes a huge different too. Out of curiosity I tried having Gemini chat (with Argon) try to solve a level of this new puzzle game I'm linking (Order of the Sinking Star). It just got in an infinite loop and crashed. Then I try Antigravity with Flash 3.8 and it solved it easily. I saw the harness looked at other sokoban puzzles, coded some stuff, tried to replicate the level, etc. All things that a pure Gemini Chat doesn't really do.
LLMs are great for the high level harness, but if you want to count letters for example, it will still rely on "tools" like a piece of code to do it more reliably. Similarly in the above example, you wouldn't have the LLM directly try to analyze the images, but instead fetch and use the best tool for the job. But that can only be as good as the harness/tools it has access to.
We don't disagree by a great margin. I'm not an anti-LLM person. I'm anti-hype in this case.
LLMs are pretty good at writing calculators.
I'd rather use a verified one. Scientific calculations on a ALU is tricky. There are many traps and hardware limitations to consider.
You say this, but the reaction I get from colleagues is increasingly "why bother training new models when you can just ask an LLM?"
Doesn't matter the domain or the task, the answer from some researchers is "LLM" always.
[dead]
Yeah so that’s why we invented tool calls, and an LLM exercises judgment when it should simply place a tool call to do simple math.
Most people need to be reminded of this. Repeatedly.
This does make sense, however in view of the recent maths results and since there are tens of thousands of training images for skin cancer available on the public internet I was expecting the LLMs to perform a lot better than they did
[flagged]
And if you give the LLM a simple calculator MCP, then the calculator's outperformance disappears.
Nope. It'll be more efficient and faster.
That's just semantics around the word "performance".
We're messaging each other right now inside a heavily sandboxed virtual environment that interprets XML-like markup and runs a text-based JITted scripting language from the 90s. It doesn't really matter that it's extremely inefficient, since it's still effectively instant.
Actually not. Watt per task is a metric bothers more than LLM operators and users. We care about it a lot, and working a lot to measure and improve it, and we're not doing it in context of AI or LLMs.
Effectively instant means nothing, since everything is fast for small n. I love to give this example from a codebase I have worked on during my Ph.D. The problem which took half an hour under Matlab was done in ~40 seconds with mine, however, a thousand-step version of the same problem would take 11 hours. Saving a single second from that 40 second loop would shave my work by ~20 minutes, and this will compound for bigger problems still.
Just because we see the results instantly, doesn't mean it's fast or efficient by any means. It means we might forego optimizing it for sufficiently small n, if we don't care about that part of the code. That's all.
Generally when I want to use a calculator, I use an app on my phone or computer. The watts per task is abysmal compared to a desk calculator.
The app is less efficient only in an abstract, impractical way.
> The watts per task is abysmal compared to a desk calculator.
It depends on the calculator and task at hand. Consider graphing, integration or any programmable needs, and they might converge. ALU of a processor is pretty efficient at what it does.
> The app is less efficient only in an abstract, impractical way.
Again, depends, as I said above. You tend to brush efficiency away because you only mentally measure time to completion, only, which is understandable.
Imagine performing literally trillions of matrix multiplications in order to figure out the answer to 1 + 2.
Your computer/phone just performed millions of them in order to display the contents of my comment to you.
Pretty much what our brain does.
Sure, but what about performance per joule?
If performance per joule is important in this loosely-defined hypothetical scenario, then it's important.
If it's not, then it's not.