Re: [emacs-tangents] What was ever truly innovated by some of Large Language Models?

[Jean Louis]

* Rudolf Adamkovič <rudolf@adamkovic.org> [2025-05-15 11:45]:
> That is true for all human inventions as well.  In natural sciences, for
> example, nature is the automated evaluator.  In formal sciences, it can
> be a proof solver, a computer, or a library of theorems.  LLMs need to
> access some ground truth to innovate.  So what?  Newton and Galileo did
> too.  Does that make discoveries not innovative?  Of course not.

Okay thanks for thinking about it.

When you say "LLMs need to access some ground truth to innovate..."
you are talking like those are some kind of living entities, while in
reality it is just bunch of vectors in a place, doing nothing without
software program.

How could any LLM even know what is the ground truth? Programmer must
somehow give input and define those vector types of ground truth.

And you said that there are some discoveries, I only wish to know which?

I am still doing the research, but cannot find new discoveries. 

> But, such reasoning does not apply in this thread, because the meaning
> of the term innovative is left undefined and keeps changing, while the
> final answer remains fixed to

Innovation - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

ISO TC 279 in the standard ISO 56000:2020 defines innovation as "a new or 
changed entity, realizing or redistributing value".

Definition of innovation is well defined and international standard. If you 
don't know definition of it, or doesn't accept what the world accept, then of 
course you will argue about it as in your individual definition you will find 
how it works, but the world wouldn't approve of it.

>   "there is no example of innovation by the LLM".
> 
> Well then, that is the answer, no matter what.

So far... we all want that change to come. Even if not the LLM, be it
some other form of the computing, I would like to see truly new
innovations.

-- 
Jean Louis