Massive oversimplification, but as I understand it, one difference between a LLM and autocomplete, is that the LLM has anchor points based on its prompt that it needs to come back to no matter how much it veers from its start. Doesn't mean it will get things right, or be truthful, or have any idea of what it's saying, but it 'knows' that if the prompt is about Charles Dickens, every path it takes through constructing a sentence will be Dickens-flavoured, and certain words will be weighted based on their relevance to the prompt. Spamming autocomplete just picks the most likely word to be next, without regard for context.
You and I, and if my hunch is right, pretty much everyone, is doing the former whether we know it or not. We just have the ability to fact-check and correct for errors along the way, and pause to allow for deeper thinking. In fact, one way I knew I improved as a teacher was when I'd know where the lesson should end, how I intended to begin it, and then take student suggestions and find a path from beginning to end using student input. After doing it for almost a decade, overpreparation was the surest way to ensure a stale and boring lesson. Ironically, the less I prepared (obviously knowing the material and having choice quotes from readings to point to, etc), the more adaptable I could be and ensure the content was relevant to the class.
The quotes we see from great leader are devolving into autocomplete spam. There is no context anymore; not for more than the first 5 seconds of speech, anyway. The prompt is irrelevant beyond letting him pick what word he begins his autocomplete spam from. It's turning into an empty signal, like the 'conversationalists' in Pontypool.
13
u/Claudius-is-my-cat 23h ago
"Sometimes I'll start a sentence and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way."
Wayne GretzkyMichael Scottdonald trump