Sure, the task is not completed perfectly, but that's not the point.
Isn't it?
If the computer can't do it better than a human being, then what's the point?
Being wrong at scale is not better than being right.
Isn't it?
If the computer can't do it better than a human being, then what's the point?
Being wrong at scale is not better than being right.
But no ones hire random humans for things like this. You go and hire a vector artist and they will get your a very good pelican on a a bike. That's how you get things done when you can't do it.
Yeah, but then, you recruit the artist for $XXX - whereas you "recruit" your LLM for $0.XXX for the same task.
Of course the quality difference is huge. But sometimes you don't need that level of quality.
Also, finding a vector artist takes days of communication, payment settlement, revisions, etc.
Not always the most practical solution.
Because the benchmark wasn't testing "can an LLM draw a pelican like a human". The original article was testing the relative capabilities between LLMs. Now that LLMs can all draw pelicans all similarly, the test is less interesting as a comparative benchmark.
This is what the tech industry has become?
Less of a failure is still failure.
LLM has progressed a lot in the last two year, judging from the pelican drawings. I personally couldn't care less about it though. I do know that I've gone from using no AI at all for coding to probably 95%. I hardly code by hand anymore. That's much more impressive and significant. Failure you said?
Pick up a newspaper. Start with the Wall Street Journal. These are public companies. It's not a secret.
It can certainly do it better than I can. Sometimes you don't have a human handy with the required skills to do something.