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

151–160 of 214 posts

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

#151

Post by mold_aid »

simianwords wrote: post #41
plewd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like OP originally said, the LLM doesn't have access to the actual process of the author, only the completed/refined output. Not sure why you need a concrete example to "test", but just think about the fact that the LLM has no idea how a writer brainstorms, re-iterates on their work, or even comes up with the ideas in the first place.

i don't buy this logic. if i have studied an author greatly i will be able to recognise patterns and be able to write like them. ex: i read a lot of shakespeare, understand patterns, understand where he came from, his biography and i will be able to write like him. why is it different for an LLM? i again don't get what the point is?

You are not able to write like Shakespeare. Shakespeare isn't really even a great example of an "author" per se. Like anybody else you could get away with: "well I read a lot of Bukowski and can do a passable imitation" or "I'm a Steinbeck scholar and here's a description of his style." But not Shakespeare.

I get that you're into AI products and ok, fine. But no you have not "studied [Shakespeare] greatly" nor are you "able to write like [Shakespeare]." That's the one historical entity that you should not have chosen for this conversation.

This bot is likely just regurgitating bits from the non-fiction writing of authors like an animatronic robot in the Hall of Presidents. Literally nobody would know if the LLM was doing even a passable job of Truman Capote-ing its way through their half-written attempt at NaNoWriMo

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

#152

Post by simianwords »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #148
simianwords wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is outdated stuff from 3 years ago.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

there are close to zero domain specific models that beat frontier SOTA models even in their own domain. (other than few edge cases like token extraction)

why do you think that's the case? lets start from here.

the real answer is that you get benefits from having data from many sources that add up expontentially for intelligence.

> LLMs are pattern matchers

but lets try to falsify this. can you come up with a prompt that clearly shows that LLM's can't reason?

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

#153

Post by simianwords »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #143
simianwords wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

how would you empirically disprove that it doesn't have understanding?

i can prove that it does have understanding because it behaves exactly like a human with understanding does. if i ask it to solve an integral and ask it questions about it - it replies exactly as if it has understood.

give me a specific example so that we can stress test this argument.

for example: what if we come up with a new board game with a completely new set of rules and see if it can reason about it and beat humans (or come close)?

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

#154

Post by dolebirchwood »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #127
jacquesm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably mean necromancy. I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead.

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.

He's not hostile; he's Dutch.

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

#155

Post by bigfishrunning »

simianwords wrote: post #153
bigfishrunning wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!)

how would you empirically disprove that it doesn't have understanding? i can prove that it does have understanding because it behaves exactly like a human with understanding does. if i ask it to solve an integral and ask it questions about it - it replies exactly as if it has understood. give me a specific example so that we can stress test this argument. for example: what if we come up with a new board game with a c…

We don't need to come up with a new board game. How about a board game that has been written about extensively for hundreds of years

LLMs can't consistently win at chess https://www.nicowesterdale.com/blog/why-llms-cant-play-chess

Now, some of the best chess engines in the world are Neural Networks, but general purpose LLMs are consistently bad at chess.

As far as "LLM's don't have understanding", that is axiomatically true by the nature of how they're implemented. A bunch of matrix multiplies resulting in a high-dimensional array of tokens does not think; this has been written about extensively. They are really good for generating language that looks plausible; some of that plausable-looking language happens to be true.

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

#156

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

simianwords wrote: post #133
arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the visualization of the integration process via steps typed out in the chat interface is the same as what you would have done on paper, the way the steps were obtained is likely very different for you and LLM. You recognized the integral's type and applied corresponding technique to solve it. LLM found the most likely continuation of tokens after your input among all the data it has been fed, and those token…

> the way the steps were obtained is likely very different for you and LLM this is not true, any examples?

I explained in detail why it is true, and what would the opposite imply for you as a human being.

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

#157

Post by simianwords »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #155
simianwords wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would you empirically disprove that it doesn't have understanding? i can prove that it does have understanding because it behaves exactly like a human with understanding does. if i ask it to solve an integral and ask it questions about it - it replies exactly as if it has understood. give me a specific example so that we can stress test this argument. for example: what if we come up with a new board game with a c…

We don't need to come up with a new board game. How about a board game that has been written about extensively for hundreds of years LLMs can't consistently win at chess https://www.nicowesterdale.com/blog/why-llms-cant-play-chess Now, some of the best chess engines in the world are Neural Networks, but general purpose LLMs are consistently bad at chess. As far as "LLM's don't have understanding", that is axiomatical…

false, chess ELO is pretty good

https://maxim-saplin.github.io/llm_chess/

ets not cherry pick and actually see benchmarks please. i would say even ~1000 elo means that it can reason better than the average human.

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

#158

Post by Matl »

dolebirchwood wrote: post #138
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…

> it all starts with our EAGER values Sounds like something I'd expect to see on a banner in an elementary school classroom.

Many CEOs treat their employees like kids in elementary school to make themselves feel smarter.

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

#159

Post by blargey »

simianwords wrote: post #21
drbig wrote: post #3

The most interesting is the realization that if the LLM's input is only the output of a professional (human), then by definition the LLM cannot mimic the process the (human) professional applied to get from whatever input they had to produce the output. In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.

i don't get what the point of what you are saying is? i can ask it to explain how to solve an integral right now with steps. i can ask it to tell me how to write like a person X right now.

“i can ask it to give a text description of a linear logical math process that has been described in text countless times”

If you think “the tacit knowledge and conscious/subconscious reasoning mix that caused X to write like X” can be meaningfully captured by some 1-page “style guide” like llmtropes, I’m not sure what to tell you. Such a style description would be informed by a soup of reviewers that most certainly cannot write like X even with their stronger and more nuanced observations than what the LLM picked up.

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

#160

Post by bigfishrunning »

simianwords wrote: post #157
bigfishrunning wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to come up with a new board game. How about a board game that has been written about extensively for hundreds of years LLMs can't consistently win at chess https://www.nicowesterdale.com/blog/why-llms-cant-play-chess Now, some of the best chess engines in the world are Neural Networks, but general purpose LLMs are consistently bad at chess. As far as "LLM's don't have understanding", that is axiomatical…

false, chess ELO is pretty good https://maxim-saplin.github.io/llm_chess/ ets not cherry pick and actually see benchmarks please. i would say even ~1000 elo means that it can reason better than the average human.

If you look at the "workflow" section of that page, they had to add a bunch of scaffolding around telling the model what moves are legal -- an llm can't keep enough context to know how to play chess; only to choose an advantageous move from a given list. But feel free to "cherry pick".
Post reply on HN