You're just making a totally different point here than is relevant to this thread.
It's fine to have a hobby horse! I certainly have lots of them!
But I'm sorry, it's just not relevant to this thread.
Edit to add: To be clear, it may very well be a good point! It's just not what I was talking about here.
I didn't say it's petty! I said it's not relevant.
My question at the beginning of the thread was: Assuming people are using a particular pattern, where LLMs are used to parse prompts and route them to purpose-specific tools (which is what the thread I was replying in is about), is it actually a good use of LLMs to implement that routing layer, or mightn't we use a simpler implementation for the routing layer?
Your point seems more akin to questioning whether the entire concept of farming out to tools makes sense. Which is interesting, but just a different discussion.
> It's fine to have a hobby horse!
> I didn't say it's petty!
You did.
And I already showed you made a claim that LLM was AI and that you agree that you were thinking of something akin to expert systems. When I explained why I think this is a signal that we are headed to another AI winter you started deflecting.
I am done with this conversation.
The term "hobby horse" does not imply pettiness.
I don't think I've deflected at all. You're just talking about something orthogonal to the thing I was asking about in this thread, which (predictably) totally derailed the thread into an entirely different discussion.
It's fine! Happens all the time.
> Something that seems true to me is that LLMs are actually too smart
> I think it's an expert system
I respectfully disagree with the claim that my point is petty and irrelevant in this context.