It’s not a combination of the names, it’s wordplay: “splayd” => “splay” (like splayed tines, to cover “fork”) + “spade” (a shovel, sharper than a spoon, which covers “knife” and “spoon”)

That’s not the issue I was replying to at all.

replace jobs wholesale with no oversight or understanding that need a human to curate the output

Yeah, that sucks, and it’s pretty stupid, too, because LLMs are not good replacements for humans in most respects.

we

Don’t “other” me just because I’m correcting misinformation. I’m not a fan of corporate bullshit either. Misinformation is misinformation, though. If you have a strong opinion about something, then you should know what you’re talking about. LLMs are a nuanced subject, and they are here to stay, for better or worse.

Yep, you’re exactly right. That’s a great way to express it.

This is an increasingly bad take. If you work in an industry where LLMs are becoming very useful, you would realize that hallucinations are a minor inconvenience at best for the applications they are well suited for, and the tools are getting better by leaps and bounds, week by week.

edit: Like it or not, it’s true. I use LLMs at work, most of my colleagues do too, and none of us use the output raw. Hallucinations are not an issue when you are actively collaborating with the model and not using it to either “know things for you” or “do the work for you.” Neither of those things are what LLMs are really good at, but that’s what most laypeople use them for, so these criticisms are very obviously short-sighted to those of us who have real-world experience with them in a domain where they work well.

Don’t hurt me like this.