A lot of the current hype around LLMs revolves around one core idea, which I blame on Star Trek:
Wouldn't it be cool if we could use natural language to control things?
The problem is that this is, at the fundamental level, a terrible idea.
There's a reason that mathematics doesn't use English. There's a reason that every professional field comes with its own flavour of jargon. There's a reason that contracts are written in legalese, not plain natural language. Natural language is really bad at being unambiguous.
When I was a small child, I thought that a mature civilisation would evolve two languages. A language of poetry, that was rich in metaphor and delighted in ambiguity, and a language of science that required more detail and actively avoided ambiguity. The latter would have no homophones, no homonyms, unambiguous grammar, and so on.
Programming languages, including the ad-hoc programming languages that we refer to as 'user interfaces' are all attempts to build languages like the latter. They allow the user to unambiguously express intent so that it can be carried out. Natural languages are not designed and end up being examples of the former.
When I interact with a tool, I want it to do what I tell it. If I am willing to restrict my use of natural language to a clear and unambiguous subset, I have defined a language that is easy for deterministic parsers to understand with a fraction of the energy requirement of a language model. If I am not, then I am expressing myself ambiguously and no amount of processing can possibly remove the ambiguity that is intrinsic in the source, except a complete, fully synchronised, model of my own mind that knows what I meant (and not what some other person saying the same thing at the same time might have meant).
The hard part of programming is not writing things in some language's syntax, it's expressing the problem in a way that lacks ambiguity. LLMs don't help here, they pick an arbitrary, nondeterministic, option for the ambiguous cases. In C, compilers do this for undefined behaviour and it is widely regarded as a disaster. LLMs are built entirely out of undefined behaviour.
There are use cases where getting it wrong is fine. Choosing a radio station or album to listen to while driving, for example. It is far better to sometimes listen to the wrong thing than to take your attention away from the road and interact with a richer UI for ten seconds. In situations where your hands are unavailable (for example, controlling non-critical equipment while performing surgery, or cooking), a natural-language interface is better than no interface. It's rarely, if ever, the best.
like this
reshared this
FoolishOwl
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •Fluchtkapsel
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •like this
Hypolite Petovan likes this.
M. The Crystalline Entity
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •βFruit flies like a banana.β
It is indeed unsolvable.
M. The Crystalline Entity reshared this.
jarkman
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •I'm not so sure. I often express myself in natural language to ask people to do things, and that usually works out pretty well.
So it's possible in principle, it's just not something that computers can do yet. Maybe one day they will.
Alexandre Oliva
in reply to jarkman • • •clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •Time to share this lovely @CommitStrip again!
commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/β¦
@David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
feld
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •>> Wouldn't it be cool if we could use natural language to control things?
> The problem is that this is, at the fundamental level, a terrible idea.
This is a terrible take and you should really know better. It's not different than chastising people who use higher level programming languages or Dreamweaver to make a website instead of studying HTML.
We can all agree that e.g., setting down a person with no development experience and asking them to design a missile defense system for your country using natural language is a terrible idea.
We should all be able to agree that giving people a way to use natural language to build little apps, tools, and automations that solve problems nobody is going to build a custom solution for is a good thing.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
in reply to feld • • •@feld
I feel like you didnβt read past the quoted section before replying with a needlessly confrontational reply.
It is very different. If you give someone a low-code end-user programming environment, they have a tool the helps them to unambiguously express their intent. It gives them a tool to do so concisely, often more concisely (at the expense of generality), which empowers the user. This is a valuable thing to do.
No, I disagree with that. Giving them a natural-language interface and you remove agency from them. The system, not the user, is responsible for filling in the blanks. And the system does so in a way that does not permit the user to learn. Rather than using the tool badly and then improving as a result of their failure, the system fills in the blanks in arbitrary ways.
A natural-language interface and an easy-to-learn interface are not the same thing. There is enormous value in creating easy-to-learn interfaces that empower users but giving them interfaces that use natural language is not the best (or even a very good) way of doing this.
Alexandre Oliva
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •silverwizard
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • •feld
in reply to silverwizard • • •I am Water
in reply to feld • • •I have a feeling in a decade people will look back at all these conversations much like e commerce. Saying what were we thinking. The problems are actually not what we think and the solutions are far more impactful.
In all my testing of AI itβs only getting better and yes you have to have a conversation with it. Much like this entire thread to figure out what is what. Thatβs very natural to lots of humans. Itβs not a leap for this to become how it is for these systems.
feld likes this.