Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

dosaygo-studio.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#891

Post by vidarh »

tempestn wrote: post #297
vidarh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the page was a hilarious joke, not a bad prediction. A lot of these are fantastic observational humour about HN and tech. Gary Marcus still insisting AI progress is stalling 10 years from now, for example. Several digs at language rewrites. ITER hardly having nudged forwards. Google killing another service. And so on.

Wait, wouldn't sustained net positive energy be huge? (Though I don't think that's actually possible from ITER unless there were some serious upgrades over the next decade!)

It would be huge, but only 20 minutes would also still mean it's still far away from making fusion workable, so it fits neatly into the standard joke that fusion is perpetually 10 years away.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#892

Post by vidarh »

iambateman wrote: post #480
vidarh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the page was a hilarious joke, not a bad prediction. A lot of these are fantastic observational humour about HN and tech. Gary Marcus still insisting AI progress is stalling 10 years from now, for example. Several digs at language rewrites. ITER hardly having nudged forwards. Google killing another service. And so on.

I totally agree that it was a funny joke. But I've noticed that a lot of people think of LLM's as being _good_ at predicting the future and that's what I find concerning.

That's a valid concern about the number of people who think people are good at predicting the future too.

(I'll make my prediction: 10 years from now, most things will be more similar to what things are today than most people expected them to be)

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#894

Post by Workaccount2 »

hbn wrote: post #890
jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

"Hallucination" has always seemed like a misnomer to me anyway considering LLMs don't know anything. They just impressively get things right enough to be useful assuming you audit the output. If anything, I think all of their output should be called a hallucination.

We don't know if anything knows anything because we don't know what knowing is.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#895

Post by psychoslave »

jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

In French we call that kind of practices "affabulations". Maybe fraud, deception or deceit are the closest matching translations for this context.

That is what the LLM are molded to do (of course). But this is also the insistence by informed people to unceasingly use fallacious vocabulary. Sure a bit of analogy can be didactic, but the current trend is rather to leverage on every occasion to spread the impression that LLM works with processes similar to human thoughts.

A good analogy also communicate the fact that it is a mere analogy. So carrying the metaphor is only going to accumulate more delusion than comprehension.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#896

Post by CGMthrowaway »

Aurornis wrote: post #876
ActivePattern wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard the caveat that it can't be attributable to misinformation in the pre-training corpus. For frontier models, we don't even have access to the enormous training corpus, so we would have no way of verifying whether or not it is regurgitating some misinformation that it had seen there or whether it is inventing something out of whole cloth.

> I've never heard the caveat that it can't be attributable to misinformation in the pre-training corpus. If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed. Matters of access to the training corpus are a separate issue.

> If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed.

That would mean that there is never any hallucination.

The point of original comment was distinguishing between fact and fiction, which an LLM just cannot do. (It's an unsolved problem among humans, which spills into the training data)

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#897

Post by jsrcout »

Late to the party but OMG this is possibly the greatest tech news discussion page of all time. Not just hilarious and impressive, but so many fantastic ideas / weirdly believable news items from the future! As an old fart software developer I've been slowly dipping my toe into the AI pool, I may have to just dive in!

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#898

Post by tim333 »

ayewo wrote: post #855
jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

Terminology-wise, does this read like a better title instead?: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 generates the HN front page 10 years from now

I'd vote for imagines.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#899

Post by eMPee584 »

Aurornis wrote: post #876
ActivePattern wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard the caveat that it can't be attributable to misinformation in the pre-training corpus. For frontier models, we don't even have access to the enormous training corpus, so we would have no way of verifying whether or not it is regurgitating some misinformation that it had seen there or whether it is inventing something out of whole cloth.

> I've never heard the caveat that it can't be attributable to misinformation in the pre-training corpus. If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed. Matters of access to the training corpus are a separate issue.

not that the internet had contained any misinformation or FUD when the training data was collected

also, statments with certainty about fictitious "honey pot prompts" are a problem, plausibly extrapolating from the data should be more governed by internal confidence.. luckily there are benchmarks now for that i believe

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#900

Post by jotaen »

jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

To me, “imagine” would have been a more fitting term here.

(“Generate”, while correct, sounds too technical, and “confabulate” reads a bit obscure.)

Post reply on HN