To my surprise, on re-reading that post I didn't mention that you need to double-check everything it does. I guess I forgot to mention that at the time because I thought it was so obvious - anyone who's paying attention to LLMS should already know that you can't trust them to reliably extract this kind of information.
I've mentioned that a lot in my other writing. I frequently tell people that the tricky thing about working with LLMs is learning how to make use of a technology that is inherently unreliable.
Update: added a new note about reliability here: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Oct/17/video-scraping/#a-note...
Second update: I just noticed that I DID say "You should never trust these things not to make mistakes, so I re-watched the 35 second video and manually checked the numbers. It got everything right." in that post already.
> You seem to be confusing me with someone that hasn't been asking you repeatedly to address these kinds of concerns
Where did you do that?
It's like criticizing a "Hello World" program for not having proper error handling and security protocols. While those are important for production systems, they're not the point of a demonstration or learning example.
Your response seems to take these examples and hold them to the standard of mission-critical systems, which is a form of technical gatekeeping - raising the bar unnecessarily high for what counts as a "valid" technical demonstration.