Yes, thank you so much. I totally wanted and have time for a scavenger hunt + jigsaw puzzle. Clearly you understand enough of the issue to know that I need to handle it but can’t be bothered to spend 45 seconds to summarize the relevant bits.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    They can entirely take off and land at this point, it’s a lot more capable than you think.

    You didn’t discuss the actual situation though, LLM models are capable of summarizing email chains just as well or better than a human at this point.

    • forestbeasts@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I think you underestimate the importance of “knowing what the words actually mean” if you think a statistical wordsharter can summarize things better than a person.

      – Frost

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I don’t think, I know. I use these systems regularly. They do a great job of the summaries. I sometimes double check things, but it has proved unnecessary since the later gpt 4 level models.

        Your negative feelings towards these systems don’t magically override reality.