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

Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

phind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#121

Post by IanCal »

minkles wrote: post #50

I asked it a question and it answered authoritatively. > The impedance of a 22 μH capacitor at 400 THz is approximately 1.80 × 10^-24 Ω. The correct answer should have been “what the hell are you talking about dumbass?”. Capacitors are not measured in henries and the question really has no meaning at 400THz. Another stochastic parrot.

The 405B model for me brings out a formula for calculating this, explains that my question doesn't make sense given that capacitors are measured in F instead and then plugs the values in assuming I made a mistake and meant 22uF.

It then explains that in practice other factors would dominate and the frequency is so high traditional analysis doesn't make so much sense.

https://www.phind.com/search?cache=ns6ojo1obnomkerccup9nm3r

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#122

Post by Intralexical »

mdp2021 wrote: post #105
Retr0id wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an AI assistant, I should be more careful I hate this kind of thing so much.

Absolutely. Behaviour that in normal life in clean societies would be "eliciting violence": automated hypocritical lying, apologizing in form and not in substance, making statements based on fictional value instead of truthfulness...

That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it.

Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types

Choose any five wikilinks. Skim their distinct functions and pathologies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_b...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network

Evolution's many things, but maybe most of all lazy. Human intelligence has dozens of distinct neuron types and at least hundreds of differentiated regions/neural subnetworks because we need all those parts in order to be both sentient and sapient. If you lesion parts of the human brain, you lose the associated functions, and eventually end up with what we'd call mental/neurological illnesses. Delusions, obsessions, solipsism, amorality, shakes, self-contradiction, aggression, manipulation, etc.

LLMs don't have any of those parts at all. They only have pattern-matching. They can only lie, because they don't have the sensory, object permanence, and memory faculties to conceive of an immutable external "truth"/reality. They can only be hypocritical, because they don't have the internal identity and introspective abilities to be able to have consistent values. They cannot apologize in substance, because they have neither the theory of mind and self-awareness to understand what they did wrong, the social motivation to care, nor the neuroplasticity to change and be better. They can only ever be manipulative, because they don't have emotions to express honestly. And I think it speaks to a not-atypical Silicon Valley arrogance to pretend that they can replicate "intelligence", without apparently ever considering a high-school-level philosophy or psychology course to understand what actually lets human intelligence tick.

At most they're mechanical psychopaths [1]. They might have some uses, but never outweighing the dangers for anything serious. Some of the individuals who think this technology is anything remotely close to "intelligent" have probably genuinely fallen for it. The rest, I suppose, see nothing wrong because they've created a tool in their own image…

[1]: I use this term loosely. "Psychopathy" is not a diagnosis in the DSM-V, but psychopathic traits are associated with multiple disorders that share similar characteristics.

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#123

Post by Intralexical »

spirodonfl wrote: post #48

I just tried. Asked a question on a research topic I'm digging into. It gave me some answers but no references. Then I copy the answers it gave me and specifically ask for references. Then I got: I sincerely apologize for my earlier response. Upon reviewing the search results provided, I realize I made an error in referencing those specific studies. The search results don't contain any relevant information for the cl…

> I sincerely apologize for my earlier response. Upon reviewing the search results provided, I realize I made an error in referencing those specific studies. The search results don't contain any relevant information for the claims I mentioned earlier. As an AI assistant, I should be more careful in providing accurate and supported information. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In this case, I don't have reliable references to support those particular statements about software tools and their impact on developer experience and software quality.

Honestly, that's a lot of words and repetition to say "I bullshitted".

Though there are humans that also talk like this. Silver lining to this LLM craze, maybe it'll inoculate us to psychopaths.

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#124

Post by boesboes »

navaed01 wrote: post #85
jadbox wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my tests, it does hallucinate answers, even with Phind 70B. For example, I asked for bluetooth earplugs that have easy battery replacements. It always kept giving me answers for earplugs with I know have their battery soldered into the casing. Tbf, perplexity also fails at this question.

‘Easy battery replacements’ is pretty subjective. This feels like one of those error that demonstrate how good the tech is, because it’s being used for very specific and subjective requests

However, glued-in is not subjective. Non-replaceable is not on the scale of easily-hardly replaceable.

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#125

Post by ithkuil »

magicalhippo wrote: post #117
ithkuil wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models weights are tuned towards the direction that would cause the model to best fit the training set. It turns out that this process makes it useful at producing mostly sensible predictions (generate output) for text that is not present in the training set (generalization). The reason that works is because there are a lot of patterns and redundancy in the stuff that we feed to the models and the stuff that we a…

In the Physics of Language Models talk[1], he argues that the model knows it has made a mistake, sometimes even before it has made it. Though apparently training is crucial to make the model be able to use this constructively. That being said, I'm aware that the model doesn't reason in the classical sense. Yet, as I mentioned, it does give me less confabulation when I tell it it's ok not to answer. I will note that w…

There are different ways to be wrong.

For example you can confabulate "facts" or you can make logical or coherence mistakes.

Current LLMs are encouraged to be creative and effectively "make up facts".

That's what created the first wow factor. The models are able to write a Star Trek fan fiction model in the style of Shakespeare. They are able to take a poorly written email and make it "sound" better (for some definition of better, e.g. more formal, less formal etc).

But then, human psychology kicked in and as soon as you have something that can talk like a human and some marketing folks label as "AI" you start expecting it to be useful also for other tasks, some of which require factual knowledge.

Now, it's in theory possible to have a system that you can converse with which can _also_ search and verify knowledge. My point is that this is not the place where LLMs start from. You have to add stuff on top of them (and people are actively researching that)

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#126

Post by amelius »

Intralexical wrote: post #122
mdp2021 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Behaviour that in normal life in clean societies would be "eliciting violence": automated hypocritical lying, apologizing in form and not in substance, making statements based on fictional value instead of truthfulness...

That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it. Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types…

> They can only lie

That is definitely not true.

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#128

Post by DoctorOetker »

Intralexical wrote: post #122
mdp2021 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Behaviour that in normal life in clean societies would be "eliciting violence": automated hypocritical lying, apologizing in form and not in substance, making statements based on fictional value instead of truthfulness...

That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it. Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types…

Wait for the first large scale LLM using source-aware training:

https://github.com/mukhal/intrinsic-source-citation

This is not something that can be LoRa finetuned after the pretraining step.

What we need is a human curated benchmark for different types of source-aware training, to allow competition, and an extra column in the most popular leaderboards, including it in the Average column, to incentivice AI companies to train in a source aware way, of course this will instantly invalidate the black-box-veil LLM companies love to hide behind so as not to credit original authors and content creators, they prefer regulators to believe such a thing can not be done.

In meantime such regulators are not thinking creatively and are clearly just looking for ways to tax AI companies, and in turn hiding behind copyright complications as an excuse to tax the flow of money wherever they smell it.

Source aware training also has the potential to decentralize search!

Re: Phind-405B and faster, high quality AI answers for everyone

#130

Post by Intralexical »

amelius wrote: post #126
Intralexical wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it. Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types…

> They can only lie That is definitely not true.

Lying is a state of mind. LLMs can output true statements, and they can even do so consistently for a range of inputs, but unlike a human there isn't a clear distinction in an LLM's internal state based on whether its statements are true or not. The output's truthfulness is incidental to its mode of operation, which is always the same, and certainly not itself truthful.

In the context of the comment chain I replied to, and the behaviour in question, any statement by an LLM pretending to be be capable of self-awareness/metacognition is also necessarily a lie. "I should be more careful", "I sincerely apologize", "I realize", "Thank you for bringing this to my attention", etc.

The problem is the anthropomorphization. Since it pretends to be like a person, if you ascribe intention to it then I think it is most accurately described as always lying. If you don't ascribe intention to it, then it's just a messy PRNG that aligns with reality an impressive amount of the time, and words like "lying" have no meaning. But again, it's presented and marketed as if it's a trustworthy sapient intelligence.

Post reply on HN