Andreas Klebinger wrote: > But maybe I’m alone in feeling this way. If everyone else is happy to > read Opus text output all, or at least to have Opus read Opus output > all day long, then I will surrender this fight and move to another > hill to die on.
Andreas, you’re definitely not alone with this. I think and feel the same, although I usually don’t have the “fun” of reading LLM output. > But even if you are “all in” on AI these texts are also objectively > garbage for future AI use as they are bloated with irrelevant facts, > meaningless past history, repeating things obvious from context and > generally wordy for no benefit. I wouldn’t even think much about the effects those LLM-generated texts have for “all-in” approaches, as I consider these approaches misguided from the start. > Accepting bad prose is […] worse for agents because it fills context > windows with irrelevant facts and pointless trivia that poison their > reasoning ability. > > […] > > [LLMs] are terrible at understanding what the tricky parts are, what > is worth highlighting, what can be dropped because it is obvious from > wider context. LLMs don’t reason and don’t understand. You could perhaps say that classical, logic-based, AI reasons, but no AI understands. I think it is important to not overlook this, since it shows that the problems we’re facing here have deeper roots. All the best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
