Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuB-42 | Hacker News Reader

"Do LLMs think?" is a false problem outside of the field of philosophy.

The real question that gets billions invested is "Is it useful?".

If the "con artist" solves my problem, that's fine by me. It is like having a mentalist tell me "I see that you are having a leaky faucet and I see your future in a hardware store buying a 25mm gasket and teflon tape...". In the end, I will have my leak fixed and that's what I wanted, who care how it got to it?

View on HN

I don't disagree that "is it useful" is the important question.

The amount of money being invested is very clearly disproportionate to the current utility, and much of it is obviously based on the premise that LLMs can (or will soon) be able to think.

> The amount of money being invested is very clearly disproportionate to the current utility,

I don't think this is so clear. At least, if by "current utility" you also include potential future utility even without any advance in the underlying models.

Most of the money invested in the 2000 bubble was lost, but that didn't mean the utility of the internet was overblown.

Well, I find myself forced to agree with you there. I think these models are tremendously useful for data processing, and that chasing "reasoning" and the production of artifacts for human consumption are entirely red herrings.

I think at best, there's a wide gulf between what LLMs can actually do, and what people _believe_ they can do. This is not to say that LLMs are not useful, but just that people broadly and regularly misunderstand their usefulness. This is not necessarily the fault of LLMs, but it does render their usage and adoption a bit problematic.

I think that people figure out what LLMs are capable of doing well pretty quickly after they start using them. I'd say that their capabilities are underestimated by many people who once tried to use non-reasoning LLMs to do things that reasoning LLMs can do very well today.

It has to both be useful and economical. If that answer cost $2 to get you and a search+youtube video would have been just as effective and much cheaper, then it's possible that the new way to get the answer isn't significantly better than the old way.

The graveyards of startups are littered with economically infeasible solutions to problems.

So far it seems LLM-based systems are still reaching for a use.

Does copilot not count?

If copilot is so good why does MS/Github keep pushing it on people who haven't asked for it and don't want it? They're now giving it away for free, just to be able to put it everywhere.

I don't think trial versions of software reek of desperation. They are pushing trials because they think you'll like it and sign up for the paid version.

https://www.joanwestenberg.com/you-cant-win-in-tech-unless-y...

The original grocery store that invented the shopping cart had to hire actors to pretend to use them before customers "got it".

I wouldn't read too much into customers knowing what they want.

Sounds like an urban myth to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart?wprov=sfti1#Deve...

https://www.afstores.com/the-intriguing-story-of-how-the-sho...

or if those sources aren't your cup of tea, how about Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/meet-american-invented-sho...

> The public — naturally — hated the idea.

I sit corrected

Reply on news.ycombinator.com