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

Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 214 posts

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#141

Post by simianwords »

Rohansi wrote: post #107
esafak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process is irrelevant if the output is the same, because we never observe the process. I assume you are arguing that the outputs are not guaranteed to be the same unless you reproduce the process. If we are talking about human artifacts, you never have reproducibility. The same person will behave differently from one moment to the next, one environment to another. But I assume you will call that natural variation…

It's relevant for data it hasn't been trained on. LLMs are trained to be all-knowing which is great as a utility but that does not come close to capturing an individual. If I trained (or, more likely, fine-tuned) an LLM to generate code like what's found in an individual's GitHub repositories, could you comfortably say it writes code the same way as that individual? Sure, it will capture style and conventions, but wh…

>If I trained (or, more likely, fine-tuned) an LLM to generate code like what's found in an individual's GitHub repositories, could you comfortably say it writes code the same way as that individual? Sure, it will capture style and conventions, but what about our limitations? What do you think happens if you fine-tune a model to write code like a frontend developer and ask it to write a simple operating system kernel? It's realistically not in their (individual) data but the response still depends on the individual's thought process.

Look, I don't think you understand how LLM's work. Its not about fine tuning. Its about generalised reasoning. The key word is "generalised" which can only happen if it has been trained on literally everything.

> It's relevant for data it hasn't been trained on

LLM's absolutely can reason on and conceptualise on things it has not been trained on, because of the generalised reasoning ability.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#143

Post by bigfishrunning »

simianwords wrote: post #69
mysterydip wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeating a process, yes for sure, even (pseudorandom?) variations on a process. Understanding a process is a different question, and I’m not sure how you would measure that. In school we would have a test with various questions to show you understand the concept of addition, for example. But while my calculator can perfectly add any numbers up to its memory limit, it has no understanding of addition.

It’s the degree of generalisability. And LLMs do have understanding. You can ask it how it came up with the process in natural language and it can help - something a calculator can’t do.

> And LLMs do have understanding.

They absolutely do not. If you "ask it how it came up with the process in natural language" with some input, it will produce an output that follows, because of the statistics encoded in the model. That output may or may not be helpful, but it is likely to be stylistically plausible. An LLM does not think or understand; it is merely a statistical model (that's what the M stands for!)

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#144

Post by simianwords »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #139
simianwords wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you built an LLM exclusively on the writings and letters of John Steinbeck, you could NOT tell the LLM to solve an integral for you amd expect it to be right. this shows that you have very less idea on how llm's work. LLM that is trained only on john steinbeck will not work at all. it simply does not have the generalised reasoning ability. it necessarily needs inputs from every source possible including programmi…

LLMs have the ability to convince you that they've "reasoned". sometimes, an application will loop the output of an LLM to its input to provide a "chain of reasoning" This is not the same thing as reasoning. LLMs are pattern matchers. If you trained an llm only to map some input to the output of John Steinbeck, then by golly that's what it'll be able to do. If you give it some input that isn't suitably like any of th…

this is outdated stuff from 3 years ago.

> If you trained an llm only to map some input to the output of John Steinbeck

this is literally not possible because the llm does not get generalised reasoning ability. this is not a useful hypothetical because such an llm will simply not work. why do you think you have never seen a domain specific model ever?

if you wanted to falsify this claim: "llm's cant reason" how would one do that? can you come up with some examples that shows that it can't reason? what if we come up with a new board game with some rules and see if it can beat a human at it. just feed the rules of the game to it and nothing else.

here is gpt-5.4 solving never before seen mathematics problems: https://epochai.substack.com/p/gpt-54-set-a-new-record-on-fr...

you could again say its just pattern matching but then i would argue that its the same thing we are doing.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#145

Post by euroderf »

jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#146

Post by kleene_op »

randusername wrote: post #117

> When asked if Superhuman considered notifying the people named in its AI feature, or requesting their permission, Gay said, “The experts in Expert Review appear because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.” Big difference between "AI, rewrite this passage to sound more like Hunter S Thompson" and "Grammarly-brand unauthorized digital agent Hunter S Thompson, provide a critique of my writin…

EAGER is not enough. EAGER only guarantees one side of the conjoined triangles of success. They teach this at business school.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#147

Post by jacquesm »

beepbopboopp wrote: post #142
jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

Please share how this revolting to you

Something in the same spirit as this:

https://www.chiffandfipple.com/t/kenny-g-as-necrophile-long-...

You don't bring the dead virtually back to life to perform tricks for you.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#148

Post by bigfishrunning »

simianwords wrote: post #144
bigfishrunning wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs have the ability to convince you that they've "reasoned". sometimes, an application will loop the output of an LLM to its input to provide a "chain of reasoning" This is not the same thing as reasoning. LLMs are pattern matchers. If you trained an llm only to map some input to the output of John Steinbeck, then by golly that's what it'll be able to do. If you give it some input that isn't suitably like any of th…

this is outdated stuff from 3 years ago. > If you trained an llm only to map some input to the output of John Steinbeck this is literally not possible because the llm does not get generalised reasoning ability. this is not a useful hypothetical because such an llm will simply not work. why do you think you have never seen a domain specific model ever? if you wanted to falsify this claim: "llm's cant reason" how would…

Domain specific LLM's absolutely exist, don't assume i've never seen one. You seem very misinformed on what is "literally not possible".

https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/domain-specific-llm

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#149

Post by jacquesm »

euroderf wrote: post #145
jacquesm wrote: post #110

Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.

In a similar vein, I'll bet you that rather soon Faceborg will announce a service to keep the deceased "alive" on the platform, posting and commenting away. For plenty of accounts there's plenty of training material.

Oh shit, that never even crossed my mind. They don't even need the content creators any more, they can just keep everybody on the platform even though they have left. Faking likes and faking posts for eternity.

Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers

#150

Post by jacquesm »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #136
jacquesm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's with the excessively hostile attitude? That's more of a Reddit thing than a semi-professional discussion site that has this as a guideline: >> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Which part was snarky, excessively hostile or unprofessional?

The beginning, middle and end.

So, in the interest of 'curious discourse' how would you suggest I should have written my comment so that it would be more professional, less snarky and less hostile?

You see, the comment that I replied to made an assumption, that assumption is embedded in the word 'probably'. The person that wrote that presumes to know what I intend. I corrected that. Clarified it and moved on. If that seems hostile and snarky to you then I'm happy to be educated. For myself, I think the comment I replied to could have been phrased as a question rather than a statement.

Your comment strikes me as a bit snarky too by the way.

Post reply on HN