281–290 of 319 posts
I find the editorialization of my title hilarious. I did not put a ? at the end. The answer to any headline with a ? at the end is “no.” Whoever at HN edited it — this is not alright. Feel free to argue against the piece on its merits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only because the LLM didn't have any AI generated blogspam to get trained on. That's going to change very quickly.
Any non-trival LLM that works by scraping the internet is already sufficiently advanced to be able to classify blogspam.
LLMs aren't automatically disincentivized from training on blogspam so they're not going to avoid it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends of where you go on reddit. i've learned a lot of things for my hobbies. for example r/espresso and r/roasting are a source of good information. there are also places like r/askhistorians and many many otheres. reddit is not just r/funny.
niches and hobbies are dominated by beginners and ideas that can't be challenged (theres a word for this, I cant remember what it is). people aren't just talking about their experience on major subs though. the opinions i run into real life can be very different then with people in the real world. the communities online are made up of the kinds of people who spend their time online, and the content you see on reddit…
I think you messed that sentence up, but I get what you're trying to say....
And I think it's this. The opinions you get from people 'IRL' are not apt to be as strong as the ones online, and or will run into the regency bias.
For example, it's very unlikely you'll actually meet someone that has used 10 different coffee makers because they wanted to see which one was best. Online on some subreddit, you're very likely to meet someone who has done exactly that. Of course those people with strong opinions are the ones that are apt to post most online.
So who's option is wrong? Neither. That's why they are opinions.
I may be in the minority here, but if I want the opinion of Redditors on an issue, I will use a search engine to look for it specifically, thus knowing the provenance of the information I am receiving. I don't really want the corpus of Reddit data influencing the output of a generative AI model...because it's Reddit, after all... Even though I am pretty sure it is already included in the training dataset already... I…
Reddits community is passive aggressive, thinks it’s really smart, loves memes. I certainly hope OpenAI doesn’t view it at as some kind of a source of truth
If you want truth, you don't want language, you want references to reviewed work. You also want things like 'show your work' chains of though. These are really different things.
If I tell GPT "make up a story" I don't want it coming back and saying, sorry I can only tell the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, my downvotes are well deserved, asking such a question here.
If you were just asking a question you probably wouldn't have been downvoted though…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dang, just so I don't sound crazy: Michael Seibel is on the board of directors of Reddit. I don't know what sama's involvement is with YC anymore, but I would imagine that his wishes are taken pretty seriously in SV. This is why I think the editorializing should be made clear: even if your title edits are in good faith – which I totally buy – you want to protect community trust.
That's true, he is. (I forgot that in fact.) FWIW I've never discussed Reddit with him, and there's no pressure to moderate HN any particular way about these things. Our job at HN is to keep the community happy (er, as happy as possible) and to make HN as good as possible. Those are the things that make HN valuable to YC. It should take only a brief glance at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&q…
That said, other comments of yours (where you speak about the work it takes to give HN the “HN feel”) give me a thought: HN is less a link board than it is an actual, edited, journal (lack of a better word). I mean, links are submitted by users, and upvotes are used as a signal, but unlike Reddit, HN is edited. That’s a good thing, because clearly we find this site useful.
I think from Reddit's perspective, they are extremely upset with OpenAI, in the same way that I'm sure StackOverflow is upset -- OpenAI took: - The entire corpus of data the community had curated over the last XX years - The "goodwill" that these platforms had developed towards third party developers in allowing developers to work with their data - Potentially large amounts of traffic that would normally come to thei…
To forbid LLMs simply could be a legal paragraph in Reddit’s API terms of service. Good actors would abide, bad actors would still crawl and scrape the HTML. Practically the same situation with the closed API from July forward, but without the drama.
Killing 3rd-party clients seems the far more likely motivation.
Besides, if someone really wanted to get to the data they could just scrape it. Google, Bing & co index it after all. Bit of a pain in the ass but not impossible
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I genuinely don't understand the appeal of AI for search If you're good at googling the flow is: Ask the question > Clock which result isnt spam and click it > Figure out how to dismiss the cookies gate without accepting the cookies > Dismiss the google login box > Dismiss the popover pushing you to install an app > Scroll the page or ctrl+F to find the answer With ChatGPT it's just type your question and your answ…
I mean the internet lies and makes stuff up too, being first on Google results has nothing to do with truthfulness.
AI offers none of the above. Ask the same question twice in a row, maybe you'll get a different answer, maybe you won't. You won't know which of the two answers are hallucinations, which are true factoids it trained on, and which are bogus things it had been trained on. There's literally no providence for the results- no trail, no references, nothing, because it's really a sophisticated game of "Whose Line" where everything's made up and nothing matters.