Hacker News
points by giardini 3 days ago | 0 comments
We don't need LLMs that can "answer any question on any topic in a library"!

We don't even need machines that can answer any question in a specific topic area. But we could use machines that can answer "I don't know." when they cannot compute the answer.

Consider the possibility of much-smaller LLMs that answer questions only in limited domains (physics, chemistry, math, medicine, etc.)?

Could not such LLMs exist? If not, why not? Would they not likely be more useful and far, far easier and cheaper to create and run (possibly even with far less hardware) than the current "know-all" LLMs? Also might they possibly avoid certain problems ( e.g., hallucinations, deceit, apparently undesirable behavior, etc.) associated with the "know-all" LLMs we now have?

[–] jodrellblank 1 day ago
I do wonder if a medical LLM needs to know anything about popstars or films or classic literature. But your particular examples make me wonder how you could train an LLM to talk medically about "blood pressure" without knowing any physics about what pressure is, or any of the other ways the STEM subjects overlap and blend into each other without clear boundaries - chemistry of drugs, math of dose calculations, language of drug and disease naming etymology, etc.

If a patient with high blood pressure asks "will my face look like Dizzy Gillespie?" isn't it better to answer "No, that was air pressure and cheek damage" than to answer "I don't know who that is, call your doctor"?

[–] whatshisface 2 days ago
I feel the intuition leads us astray here because the combined text of every science book ever written is much less than the size of a complete description of the human brain. To the hamburger of reason the library is a sesame seed.
Hacker News