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

I'd rather read the prompt

claytonwramsey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 880 posts

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#211

Post by djinnish »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #193

I just want to point out that AI generated material is naturally a confirmation bias machine. When the output is obviously AI, you confirm that you can easily spot AI output. When the output is human-level, you just pass through it without a second thought. There is almost no regular scenario where you are retroactively made aware something is AI.

The vast majority of the time people question whether or not an image or writing is "AI", they're really just calling it bad and somehow not realizing that you could just call the output bad and have the same effect.

Every day I'm made more aware of how terrible people are at identifying AI-generated output, but also how obsessed with GenAI-vestigating things they don't like or wouldn't buy because they're bad.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#212

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #187
musicale wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, I think that's the answer: LLMs are primarily useful for data and text translation and reduction, not for expansion. An exception is repetitive or boilerplate text or code where a verbose format is required to express a small amount of information.

There is one other very useful form of "expansion" that LLMs do. If you aren't aware: (high-parameter-count) LLMs can be used pretty reliably to teach yourself things. LLM base models "know things" to about the same degree that the Internet itself "knows" those things. For well-understood topics — i.e. subjects where the Internet contains all sorts of open-source textbooks and treatments of the subject — LLMs really…

[deleted]

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#213

Post by justinclift »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #143
generativenoise wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be nice to fix the performance reviews so we don't end up in a arms race of creating bloat until it becomes so unproductive it kills the host. Over-fitting proxy measures is one of the scourges of modernity. The only silver lining is if it becomes so wide spread and easy it loses the value of seeming sophisticated and thorough.

> creating bloat until it becomes so unproductive it kills the host Maybe we should let/encourage this to happen. Maybe letting bloated zombie-like organisations bloat themselves to death would thin the herd somewhat, to make space for organisations that are less “broken”.

"But at what price?" is probably the right question here, and that'd be a case by case basis thing. ;)

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#214

Post by jcul »

derefr wrote: post #187
musicale wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, I think that's the answer: LLMs are primarily useful for data and text translation and reduction, not for expansion. An exception is repetitive or boilerplate text or code where a verbose format is required to express a small amount of information.

There is one other very useful form of "expansion" that LLMs do. If you aren't aware: (high-parameter-count) LLMs can be used pretty reliably to teach yourself things. LLM base models "know things" to about the same degree that the Internet itself "knows" those things. For well-understood topics — i.e. subjects where the Internet contains all sorts of open-source textbooks and treatments of the subject — LLMs really…

Yeah you're totally right with this use case.

It feels like the information is there strewn across the internet, in forums, Reddit posts, stack overflow, specs, books. But to trawl though it all was so time consuming. With an LLM you can quickly distill it down to just the information you need.

Saying that, I do feel like reading the full spec for something is a valuable exercise. There may be unknown unknowns that you can't even ask the LLM about. I was able to become a subject expert in different fields just but sitting down and reading through the specs / RFCs, while other colleagues continued to struggle and guess.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#215

Post by palata »

This article really resonates with me.

The very first time I enjoyed talking to someone in another language, I was 21. Then an exchange student, I had a pleasant and interesting discussion with someone in that foreign language. On the next day, I realised that I wouldn't have been able to do that without that foreign language. I felt totally stupid: I had been getting very good grades in languages for years at school without ever caring about actually learning the language. And now, it was obvious, but all that time was lost; I couldn't go back and do it better.

A few years earlier, I had this great history teacher in high school. Instead of making us learn facts and dates by heart, she wanted us to actually get an general understanding of a historical event. Actually internalise, absorb the information in such a way that we could think and talk about it. And eventually develop our critical thinking. It was confusing at first, because when we asked "what will the exam be about", she wouldn't say "the material in those pages". She'd be like "well, we've been talking about X for 2 months, it will be about that".

Her exams were weird at first: she would give us articles from newspapers and essentially ask what we could say about them. Stuff like "Who said what, and why? And why does this other article disagree with the first one? And who is right?". At first I was confused, and eventually it clicked and I started getting really good at this. Many students got there as well, of course. Some students never understood and hated her: their way was to learn the material by heart and prove it to get a good grade. And I eventually realised this: those students who were not good at this were actually less interesting when they talked about history. They lacked this critical thinking, they couldn't make their own opinion or actually internalise the material. So whatever they would say in this topic was uninteresting: I had been following the same course, I knew which events happened and in which order. With the other students were it "clicked" as well, I could have interesting discussion: "Why do you think this guy did this? Was it in good faith or not? Did he know about that when he did it? etc".

She was one of my best teachers. Not only she got me interested in history (which had never been my thing), but she got me to understand how to think critically, and how important it is to internalise information in order to do that. I forgot a lot of what we studied in her class. I never lost the critical thinking. LLMs cannot replace that.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#216

Post by sillysaurusx »

lionkor wrote: post #68
oncallthrow wrote: post #37

LLM cheating detection is an interesting case of the toupee fallacy. The most obvious ChatGPT cheating, like that mentioned in this article, is pretty easy to detect. However, a decent cheater will quickly discover ways to conduce their LLM into producing text that is very difficult to detect. I think if I was in the teaching profession I'd just leave, to be honest. The joy of reviewing student work will inevitably b…

You assume that the teachers job is to catch when someone is cheating; its not. The teachers job is to teach, and if the kids don't learn because their parents allow them to cheat, don't check them at all, and let them behave like shitheads, then the kids will fail in life.

> then the kids will fail in life.

Quite the assertion. If anything the evidence is in favor of the other direction.

It was eye opening to see that most students cheat. By the same token, most students end up successful. It’s why everyone wants their kids to go to college.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#217

Post by agentultra »

torben-friis wrote: post #128
necovek wrote: post #54

I've already asked a number of colleagues at work producing insane amount of gibberish with LLMs to just pass me the prompt instead: if LLM can produce verbose text with limited input, I just need that concise input too (the rest is simply made up crap).

“Someone sent me this ai generated message. Please give me your best shot at guessing the brief prompt that originated the text”. Done, now ai is just lossy prettyprinting.

An incredible use of such advanced technology and gobs of energy.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#218

Post by Herring »

staunton wrote: post #198
Herring wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoken like a true "just the facts" guy. If this is a competition then Hemmingway is losing hands down. Serious well-funded marketing departments came up with that long-form style, because that's what the vast majority of people respond to. I'm just happy they have a tiny "tech specs" section for me (and presumably you).

I just went on apple.com and tried for 8 minutes to find "long beautiful flowing content". Most of the actual text I came across there were not-so-beautiful legal disclaimers... Can you share a link to what you mean?

I meant the whole site. I was using the word "content" broadly. That website is far from concise. 50 pictures of everything.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#219

Post by cwalv »

bdangubic wrote: post #185
throwawaysleep wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you are looking for. I’ve turned half baked ideas into white papers for plenty of praise. I’ve used them to make my Jira tickets seem complicated and complete. I’ve used them to get praised for writing comprehensive documentation. Part of my performance review is indirectly using bloat to seem sophisticated and thorough.

I’d rather be homeless in Philadelphia than work where you work

This kind of "perf review" hacking works ~everywhere; how well it works correlates with how entrenched the organization is (i.e., how hard it is for new players to disrupt).

You don't have to play the game the same way to work there. But it helps to accept that others will play it, and manage your own expectations accordingly.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#220

Post by charlieyu1 »

jsheard wrote: post #74

I'm far from the first to make this observation but LLMs are like anti-compression algorithms when used like that, a simple idea gets expanded into a bloated mess by an LLM, then sent to someone else who runs it through another LLM to summarize it back to something approximating the original prompt. Nobody benefits aside from Sam Altman and co, who get to pocket a cool $0.000000001 for enabling this pointless exercis…

I blame humans. I never understand why unnecessarily long writing is required in a lot of places.
Post reply on HN