this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
46 points (88.3% liked)

Futurology

1840 readers
358 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Are you kidding me? How did NYT reach those conclusions when the chair flipping conclusions of said study quite clearly states that [sic]"The use of an LLM did not significantly enhance diagnostic reasoning performance compared with the availability of only conventional resources."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825395

I mean, c'mon!

On the Nature one:

"we constructed a new forward-looking (Fig. 2) benchmark, BrainBench."

and

"Instead, our analyses suggested that LLMs discovered the fundamental patterns that underlie neuroscience studies, which enabled LLMs to predict the outcomes of studies that were novel to them."

and

"We found that LLMs outperform human experts on BrainBench"

Is in reality saying: we made this benchmark that LLMs know how to cheat around our benchmark better than experts do, nothing more, nothing else.