531–540 of 766 posts
But somehow I don't see that in Sonnet 4.5 anymore too much.
But yeah it seems really similar to what was going on in Sonnet 4 just like a few months ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this top comment.. this isn't a question you ask an LLM. But I know, that's how people are using them and is the narrative which is sold to us...
What do you ask them then?
Asking "them"... your perspective is already warped. It's not your fault, all the text we've previously ever seen is associated with a human being.
Language models are mathematical, statistical beasts. The beast generally doesn't do well with open ended questions (known as "zero-shot"). It shines when you give it something to work off of ("one-shot").
Some may complain of the preciseness of my use of zero and one shot here, but I use it merely to contrast between open ended questions versus providing some context and work to be done.
Some examples...
- summarize the following
- given this code, break down each part
- give alternatives of this code and trade-offs
- given this error, how to fix or begin troubleshooting
I mainly use them for technical things I can then verify myself.
While extremely useful, I consider them extremely dangerous. They provide a false sense of "knowing things"/"learning"/"productivity". It's too easy to begin to rely on them as a crutch.
When learning new programming languages, I go back to writing by hand and compiling in my head. I need that mechanical muscle memory, same as trying to learn calculus or physics, chemistry, etc.
this is exactly the opposite of what i want, and it reads very tone deaf to ai-psychosis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright…
LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verify…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just another sign telling you that OpenAI's end game is selling ads.
I really struggle to see a path where $.01 ad inventory covers the cost of inference, much less training or any other of OpenAI ventures. Unless every query makes you watch a 30 second unskippable video or something equally awful.
> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.
My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've dreamed about a computer assistant that can respond to natural language When we dreamed about this as kids, we were dreaming about Data from Star Trek, not some chatbot that's been focus grouped and optimized for engagement within an inch of its life. LLMs are useful for many things and I'm a user myself, even staying within OpenAI's offerings, Codex is excellent, but as things stand anthropomorphizing models…
Right. I want to be conversational with my computer, I don't want it to respond in a manner that's trying to continue the conversation. Q: "Hey Computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Ok. Making tea." Not: Q: "Hey computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Oh wow, what a fantastic idea, I love tea don't you? I'll get right on that cup of tea for you. Do you want me to tell you about all the different ways you can make and enjoy…