Live data from Hacker News

Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

chiraaggohel.com

91–100 of 207 posts

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#91
These posts about X task LLMs fails at when you give it Y prompt are getting more and more silly.

If you ask an AI to analyze some data, should the default behavior be to use that data to make various types of graphs, export said graphs, feed them back in to itself, then analyze the shapes of those graphs to see if they resemble an animal?

Personally I would be very annoyed if I actually wanted a statistical analysis, and it spent a bajillion tokens following the process above in order to tell me my data looks like a chicken when you tip it sideways.

> However, this same trait makes them potentially problematic for exploratory data analysis. The core value of EDA lies in its ability to generate novel hypotheses through pattern recognition. The fact that both Sonnet and 4o required explicit prompting to notice even dramatic visual patterns suggests they may miss crucial insights during open-ended exploration.

It requires prompting for x if you want it to do x... That's a feature, not a bug. Note that no mention of open-ended exploration or approaching the data from alternate perspectives was made in the original prompt.

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#93

I had a recent similar experience with chat gpt and a gorilla. I was designing a rather complicated algorithm so I wrote out all the steps in words. I then asked chatgpt to verify that it made sense. It said it was well thought out, logical etc. My colleague didn't believe that it was really reading it properly so I inserted a step in the middle "and then a gorilla appears" and asked it again. Sure enough, it again c…

Just imagining an episode of Star Trek where the inhabitants of a planet have been failing to progress in warp drive tech for several generations. The team beams down to discover that society's tech stopped progressing when they became addicted to pentesting their LLM for intelligence, only to then immediately patch the LLM in order to pass each particular pentest that it failed. Now the society's time and energy has…

This has more plot than all the seasons of star trek picard together :D

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#94

I uploaded the image to Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 01 21 and asked: “ Here is a steps vs bmi plot. What do you notice?” Part of the answer: “Monkey Shape: The most striking feature of this plot is that the data points are arranged to form the shape of a monkey. This is not a typical scatter plot where you'd expect to see trends or correlations between variables in a statistical sense. Instead, it appears to be a creat…

It thought my bald colleague was a plant in the background. So don't have high hopes for it. He did wear a headset so that is apparently very plant like.

Favorite thing recently has been using the vision models to make jokes. Sometimes non sequiturs get old, but occasionally you hit the right one that’s just hilarious. It’s like monster rancher for jokes.

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

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#96

These posts about X task LLMs fails at when you give it Y prompt are getting more and more silly. If you ask an AI to analyze some data, should the default behavior be to use that data to make various types of graphs, export said graphs, feed them back in to itself, then analyze the shapes of those graphs to see if they resemble an animal? Personally I would be very annoyed if I actually wanted a statistical analysis…

I have to agree with this.

Try sending this graph to an actual human analyst. His response, after you paying him will probably be to cut off any further business relationship with you.

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagining an episode of Star Trek where the inhabitants of a planet have been failing to progress in warp drive tech for several generations. The team beams down to discover that society's tech stopped progressing when they became addicted to pentesting their LLM for intelligence, only to then immediately patch the LLM in order to pass each particular pentest that it failed. Now the society's time and energy has…

There actually is an episode of TNG similar to that. The society stopped being able to think for themselves, because the AI did all their thinking for them. Anything the AI didn’t know how to do, they didn’t know how to do. It was in season 1 or season 2.

The difference is that on that episode, the AI was actually capable of thinking.

Asimov has an story like that too.

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#98
I tried passing just the plot to several models:

    ChatGPT (4o):      Noticed "a pattern"
    Le Chat (Mistral): Noticed a "cartoonish figure"  
    DeepSeek (R1):     Completely missed it
    Claude:            Completely missed it
    Gemini 2.0 Flash:  Completely missed it
    Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: Noticed "a monkey"

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagining an episode of Star Trek where the inhabitants of a planet have been failing to progress in warp drive tech for several generations. The team beams down to discover that society's tech stopped progressing when they became addicted to pentesting their LLM for intelligence, only to then immediately patch the LLM in order to pass each particular pentest that it failed. Now the society's time and energy has…

There actually is an episode of TNG similar to that. The society stopped being able to think for themselves, because the AI did all their thinking for them. Anything the AI didn’t know how to do, they didn’t know how to do. It was in season 1 or season 2.

The Machine Stops also touches on a lot of these ideas and was written in 1909!

--

"The story describes a world in which most of the human population has lost the ability to live on the surface of the Earth. Each individual now lives in isolation below ground in a standard room, with all bodily and spiritual needs met by the omnipotent, global Machine. Travel is permitted but is unpopular and rarely necessary. Communication is made via a kind of instant messaging/video conferencing machine with which people conduct their only activity: the sharing of ideas and what passes for knowledge.

The two main characters, Vashti and her son Kuno, live on opposite sides of the world. Vashti is content with her life, which, like most inhabitants of the world, she spends producing and endlessly discussing second-hand 'ideas'. Her son Kuno, however, is a sensualist and a rebel. He persuades a reluctant Vashti to endure the journey (and the resultant unwelcome personal interaction) to his room. There, he tells her of his disenchantment with the sanitised, mechanical world. He confides to her that he has visited the surface of the Earth without permission and that he saw other humans living outside the world of the Machine. However, the Machine recaptures him, and he is threatened with 'Homelessness': expulsion from the underground environment and presumed death. Vashti, however, dismisses her son's concerns as dangerous madness and returns to her part of the world.

As time passes, and Vashti continues the routine of her daily life, there are two important developments. First, individuals are no longer permitted use of the respirators which are needed to visit the Earth's surface. Most welcome this development, as they are sceptical and fearful of first-hand experience and of those who desire it. Secondly, "Mechanism", a kind of religion, is established in which the Machine is the object of worship. People forget that humans created the Machine and treat it as a mystical entity whose needs supersede their own.

Those who do not accept the deity of the Machine are viewed as 'unmechanical' and threatened with Homelessness. The Mending Apparatus—the system charged with repairing defects that appear in the Machine proper—has also failed by this time, but concerns about this are dismissed in the context of the supposed omnipotence of the Machine itself.

During this time, Kuno is transferred to a room near Vashti's. He comes to believe that the Machine is breaking down and tells her cryptically "The Machine stops." Vashti continues with her life, but eventually defects begin to appear in the Machine. At first, humans accept the deteriorations as the whim of the Machine, to which they are now wholly subservient, but the situation continues to deteriorate as the knowledge of how to repair the Machine has been lost.

Finally, the Machine collapses, bringing 'civilization' down with it. Kuno comes to Vashti's ruined room. Before they both perish, they realise that humanity and its connection to the natural world are what truly matters, and that it will fall to the surface-dwellers who still exist to rebuild the human race and to prevent the mistake of the Machine from being repeated."

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

Re: Are LLMs able to notice the “gorilla in the data”?

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagining an episode of Star Trek where the inhabitants of a planet have been failing to progress in warp drive tech for several generations. The team beams down to discover that society's tech stopped progressing when they became addicted to pentesting their LLM for intelligence, only to then immediately patch the LLM in order to pass each particular pentest that it failed. Now the society's time and energy has…

There actually is an episode of TNG similar to that. The society stopped being able to think for themselves, because the AI did all their thinking for them. Anything the AI didn’t know how to do, they didn’t know how to do. It was in season 1 or season 2.

Isn't that somewhat the background of Dune? That there was a revolt against thinking machines because humans had become too dependent on them for thinking. So humans ended up becoming addicted to The Spice instead.
Post reply on HN