> When you wrote your comment, you were completing text.
I didn't train to complete text though, I was primarily trained to make accurate responses.
And no, writing a response is not "completing text", I don't try to figure out what another person would write as a response, I write what I feel people need to read. That is a completely different thought process. If I tried to mimic what another commenter would have written it would look very different.
>And no, writing a response is not "completing text", I don't try to figure out what another person would write as a response, I write what I feel people need to read.
Functionally, it is. You're determining what text should follow the prior text. Your internal reasoning ('what I feel people need to read') is how you decide on the completion.
The core point isn't that your internal 'how' is the same as an LLM's (Maybe, Maybe not), but that labeling the LLM as a 'text completer' they way you have is essentially meaningless.
You are just imposing your own ideas on the how a LLM works, not speaking any fundamental truth of being a 'text completer'.
I didn't train to complete text though, I was primarily trained to make accurate responses.
And no, writing a response is not "completing text", I don't try to figure out what another person would write as a response, I write what I feel people need to read. That is a completely different thought process. If I tried to mimic what another commenter would have written it would look very different.