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

Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 560 posts

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#391

Post by flkiwi »

klik99 wrote: post #338
jjoonathan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT opened with a "Nope" the other day. I'm so proud of it. https://chatgpt.com/share/6896258f-2cac-800c-b235-c433648bf4...

Is that GPT5? Reddit users are freaking out about losing 4o and AFAICT it's because 5 doesn't stroke their ego as hard as 4o. I feel there are roughly two classes of heavy LLM users - one who use it like a tool, and the other like a therapist. The latter may be a bigger money maker for many LLM companies so I worry GPT5 will be seen as a mistake to them, despite being better for research/agent work.

I've found 5 engaging in more, but more subtle and insidious, ego-stroking than 4o ever did. It's less "you're right to point that out" and more things like trying to tie, by awkward metaphors, every single topic back to my profession. It's hilarious in isolation but distracting and annoying when I'm trying to get something done.

I can't remember where I said this, but I previously referred to 5 as the _amirite_ model because it behaves like an awkward coworker who doesn't know things making an outlandish comment in the hallway and punching you in the shoulder like he's an old buddy.

Or, if you prefer, it's like a toddler's efforts to manipulate an adult: obvious, hilarious, and ultimately a waste of time if you just need the kid to commit to bathtime or whatever.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#393

Post by bigmadshoe »

zehaeva wrote: post #206
naasking wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm more reminded of Tom Scott's talk at the Royal Institution "There is no Algorithm for Truth"[0]. Isn't there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

There are limits to such algorithms, as proven by Kurt Godel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

You're really missing the points with LLMs and truth if you're appealing to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#394

Post by BobaFloutist »

shmel wrote: post #384
virtue3 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should all be deeply worried about gpt being used as a therapist. My friend told me he was using his to help him evaluate how his social interactions went (and ultimately how to get his desired outcome) and I warned him very strongly about the kind of bias it will creep into with just "stroking your ego" - There's already been articles on people going off the deep end in conspiracy theories etc - because the ai ke…

You are saying this as if people (yes, including therapists) don't do this. Correctly configured LLM not only easily argues with you, but also provides a glimpse into an emotional reality of people who are not at all like you. Does it "stroke your ego" as well? Absolutely. Just correct for this.

"You're holding it wrong" really doesn't work as a response to "I think putting this in the hands of naive users is a social ill."

Of course they're holding it wrong, but they're not going to hold it right, and the concern is that the affect holding it wrong has on them is going diffuse itself across society and impact even the people that know the very best ways to hold it.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#395

Post by jon_richards »

miroljub wrote: post #337
lazide wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re likely thinking of calves. Cows (though admittedly ambiguous! But usually adult female bovines) do not drink milk. It’s insidious isn’t it?

So, this joke works only for natives who know that calf is not cow.

I guess a more accessible version would be toast… what do you put in a toaster?

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#396

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #394
shmel wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying this as if people (yes, including therapists) don't do this. Correctly configured LLM not only easily argues with you, but also provides a glimpse into an emotional reality of people who are not at all like you. Does it "stroke your ego" as well? Absolutely. Just correct for this.

"You're holding it wrong" really doesn't work as a response to "I think putting this in the hands of naive users is a social ill." Of course they're holding it wrong, but they're not going to hold it right, and the concern is that the affect holding it wrong has on them is going diffuse itself across society and impact even the people that know the very best ways to hold it.

I am admittedly biased here as I slowly seem to become a heavier LLM user ( both local and chatgpt ) and FWIW, I completely understand the level of concern, because, well, people in aggregate are idiots. Individuals can be smart, but groups of people? At best, it varies.

Still, is the solution more hand holding, more lock-in, more safety? I would argue otherwise. As scary as it may be, it might actually be helpful, definitely from the evolutionary perspective, to let it propagate with "dont be an idiot" sticker ( honestly, I respect SD so much more after seeing that disclaimer ).

And if it helps, I am saying this as mildly concerned parent.

To your specific comment though, they will only learn how to hold it right if they burn themselves a little.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#397

Post by LegionMammal978 »

naasking wrote: post #192
zehaeva wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more reminded of Tom Scott's talk at the Royal Institution "There is no Algorithm for Truth"[0]. A lot of what you're talking about is the ability to detect Truth, or even truth! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU

> I'm more reminded of Tom Scott's talk at the Royal Institution "There is no Algorithm for Truth"[0]. Isn't there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

That Wikipedia article is annoyingly scant on what assumptions are needed for the philosophical conclusions of Solomonoff's method to hold. (For that matter, it's also scant on the actual mathematical statements.) As far as I can tell, it's something like "If there exists some algorithm that always generates True predictions (or perhaps some sequence of algorithms that make predictions within some epsilon of error?), then you can learn that algorithm in the limit, by listing through all algorithms by length and filtering them by which predict your current set of observations."

But as mentioned, it's uncomputable, and the relative lack of success of AIXI-based approaches suggests that it's not even as well-approximable as advertised. Also, assuming that there exists no single finite algorithm for Truth, Solomonoff's method will never get you all the way there.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#398

Post by cozyman »

visarga wrote: post #256
pjc50 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, this is a hard philosophical problem, finding out Truth, and LLMs just side step it entirely, going instead for "looks good to me".

There is no Truth, only ideas that stood the test of time. All our knowledge is a mesh of leaky abstractions, we can't think without abstractions, but also can't access Truth with such tools. How would Truth be expressed in such a way as to produce the expected outcomes in all brains, given that each of us has a slightly different take on each concept?

"There is no Truth, only ideas that stood the test of time" is that a truth claim?

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#399

Post by giancarlostoro »

klik99 wrote: post #338
jjoonathan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT opened with a "Nope" the other day. I'm so proud of it. https://chatgpt.com/share/6896258f-2cac-800c-b235-c433648bf4...

Is that GPT5? Reddit users are freaking out about losing 4o and AFAICT it's because 5 doesn't stroke their ego as hard as 4o. I feel there are roughly two classes of heavy LLM users - one who use it like a tool, and the other like a therapist. The latter may be a bigger money maker for many LLM companies so I worry GPT5 will be seen as a mistake to them, despite being better for research/agent work.

I'm too lazy to do it, but you can host 4o yourself via Azure AI Lab... Whoever sets that up will clean r/MyBoyfriendIsAI or whatever ;)

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#400

Post by keviniam »

elif wrote: post #150

I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz" When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.

On the flip side, if you say "don't do xyz", this is probably because the LLM was already likely to do xyz (otherwise why say it?). So perhaps what you're observing is just its default behavior rather than "don't do xyz" actually increasing its likelihood to do xyz?

Anecdotally, when I say "don't do xyz" to Gemini (the LLM I've recently been using the most), it tends not to do xyz. I tend not to use massive context windows, though, which is where I'm guessing things get screwy.

Post reply on HN