Expl-AI-n itself is a pun. With the letters AI in the word explain capitalized, readers can infer that artificial intelligence is being used to explain jokes.

At a pretrained layer, the model is literally a combination of a normal distribution curve of capabilities.

It can autocomplete a flat earther as much as a Nobel physicist given sufficient context.

So it makes sense that even after the fine tuning efforts there'd be a distribution in people's experiences with the tools.

But just as the average person's output from Photoshop isn't going to be very impressive, if all you ever really see is bad Photoshops and average use, you might think it's a crappy tool.

There's a learning curve to the model usage, and even in just a year of research the difference between capabilities of the exact same model from then to now is drastically different, based only on learnings around better usage.

The problem is the base models are improving so quickly the best practices for the old generation of models goes out the window with the new. So even if there were classes available I wouldn't bother pointing you to them as you'd just be picking up info obsolete by the time the classes finished or shortly thereafter.

I'd just strongly caution against betting against the tech's continued capabilities and improvements if you don't want to be surprised and haven't taken the time to look into them operating at their best.

The OP post is pretty crap compared to the top 0.5% usage.

It's not just underestimation, it's outright misinformation.

There's so much research by this point over the past 18 months that there's an incredible amount going on beyond "it's just a Markov chain, bro."

It was never a Markov chain as that ignored the self-attention mechanism which violated the Markov property. It was just some people trying to explain it used a simplified description which went viral.

Sometimes talking to people who think it's crap feels like talking to antivaxxers. The feelings matter more than the research and evidence.

Its kind of funny because autocomplete on phones is definitely moving in the direction of using LLMs. Its like it wasn't true when people started saying it, but it will be literally true in a couple of years at most.

Do handlebars count?

I'm stubborn. I refuse to give the machine the answer I know it wants. And no, that overpass is not a bridge. Usually there is an option to skip or verify another way, This is when the captcha drops the ruse and it's clear that the machine was just analyzing my mouse movements and response timings anyway to verify that I was behaving randomly in a human way. Still a better game than any of those in YouTube ads.

laughs nervously