No one who has been a CEO, or frankly even worked closely with one, would think this could be even remotely close to possible. Or desirable if it was.
But that is probably 1% or less of the population eh?
Seems your claim's been disproven already
But it makes for a fun soundbite eh? Especially when the article claims it was in the past, and totally was awesome. Sucker born every minute.
So much of a what a CEO does is fostering culture, hiring people and setting a unique vision for the company.
Imagine thinking people would be inspired to work for a chatbot. Hilariously ridiculous.
I dunno, I would probably prefer to work under that chatbot than my current CEO that only tries to squize as much as possible out of ppl already working for him.
At least a human CEO has to worry about being arrested or someone setting their house on fire.
OK, I’ll bite. What’s your evidence for this argument?
They’re plausible word sequence generators, not ‘planning for the future’ agents. Or market analyzers. Or character evaluators. Or anything else.
And they tend to be really ‘gullible’.
What evidence do you have they could do any of those things? (And not just generate plausible text at a prompt, but actually do those things)
Every bit of interaction I’ve ever had with an LLM.
But there's a scarier further step: When people assume an exceptional text-specialist model can also meta-impersonate a generalist model impersonating a specific and different kind of specialist! ("LLM, create a legal defense.")
The essay questions also test memorization. They don’t require any difficult analysis - just superficial issue-spotting and reciting the correct elements.
If the bar exam were not a memorization test, it would be open book!
- Memorization requires you to retain the details of a large amount of material
- The most time-efficient analysis uses instant-recall of relevant general themes to guide research
- Ergo, if someone can memorize and recall a large number of details, they can probably also recall relevant general themes, and therefore quickly perform quality analysis
(Side note: memorization also proves you actually read the material in the first place)
A human that can digest the general law can also digest a special case, but that isn't true for an LLM.
And even though legal practice tends to be fairly slow and deliberative, there are settings (such as trial advocacy) where there is a real advantage to being able to cite a case or statute from memory.
All that said, I still maintain that it’s a poor way to compare humans with machines, for the same reason it would be poor to compare GPT-4 to a novelist on their tokens per second written.