Also, you are literally describing how you are holding it wrong. If you expect the LLM to magically know what you want from it without you yourself having to make the task understandable to the machine, you are standing in front of your dishwasher waiting for it to grow arms and do your dishes in the sink.
No. I'm standing in front of the dishwasher and the dishwasher expects me to tell it in detail how to wash the dishes.
This is not about if you can find any use for a LLM at all. This is about:
> LLMs are still surprisingly bad at some simple tasks
And yes. They are bad if you have to hand feed them each and every detail for an extremely simple task like comparing two lists.
You even have to debug the result because you cannot be sure that the dishwasher really washed the dishes. Maybe it just said it did.
You believe 57 words are "each and every detail", and that "produce two full, exhaustive lists of items out of your blackbox inner conceptspace/fetch those from the web" are "extremely simple tasks"?
Your ignorance of how complex these problems are misleads you into believing there's nothing to it. You are trying to supply an abstraction to a system that requires a concrete. You do not even realize your abstraction is an abstraction. Try learning programming.
Sure they are. I'm not interested in how difficult this is for a LLM. This is not the question. Go out there, get the information. That this is hard for a LLM proves the point: They are surprisingly bad at some simple tasks.
> Try learning programming.
I started programming in the early 1980's.
And neither was that my point. It is a complex problen, full stop. Again, your own inability to look past your personal abstractions ("just do the thing, it's literally one step dude") is what makes it feel simple. You ever do that "instruct someone to make coffee" exercise when you started out? What you're doing is saying "just make the coffee", refusing to decompose the problen any further, and then complaining that the other person is bad at following instructions.