Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the paradox is, the LLMs are only useful† if you're Schwartz, and you can't become Schwartz by using LLMs. That you can't "become Schwartz" by using LLMs is an unproven assumption. Actually, it's a contradiction in the logic of the essay: if Bob managed to produce a valid output by using an LLM at all , then it means that he must have acquired precisely that supervision ability that the essay claims to be necessary…
It doesn't contradict the logic of the essay. There are flowers that look & smell like female wasps well enough to fool male wasps into "mating" with them. But they don't fly off and lay wasp eggs afterwards.
The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
551–560 of 668 posts
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If students want to type notes in class or papers in the library, they can use digital typewriters, which have word processing but nothing else. Only, replacing the guts of such a machine to contain a local LLM is damn easy today. Right now the battery mass required to power the device would be a giveaway, but inference is getting energetically cheaper. > Colleges that are especially committed to maintaining this t…
Local inference? Why? Just install a SIM card and connect to your BigTech account.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#553I see this fallacy being committed a lot these days. "Because LLMs, you will no longer need a skill you don't need any more, but which you used to need, and handwaves that's bad". Academia doesn't want to produce astrophysics (or any field) scientists just so the people who became scientists can feel warm and fuzzy inside when looking at the stars, it wants to produce scientists who can produce useful results. Bob pr…
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems contradictory at first glance, if you didn't actually implement it then how well have you actually understood it? It's known from learning theory that engagement or even self-reported understanding doesn't imply that the student can actually solve problems presented to him. If someone claims to have "understood [middle school] algebra" but they aren't able to solve equations by themselves, you'd be skeptic…
I did implement it though. I wrote the code myself. Claude explained to me how all of those things worked, showed me code and examples to illustrate, walked me through the algorithms step by step. It turned out to not be as insurmountably complex as I thought it was. I'm also manually writing articles about all of those things to crystallize everything I learned. Claude has been amazing for code review. Having someon…
Given the article, I don't think most people are using LLMs in a "tutor" fashion to learn how to do the homework, they're effectively having their homework done by the tutor.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes. The famous theoretical mathematicians who immediately started on novel problems in theoretical mathematics without first learning and understanding a huge number of trivial things like how division works to begin with, what fractions are, what equations are and how they are solved etc. Edit: let's look at a paper like Some Linear Transformations on Symmetric Functions Arising From a Formula of Thiel and Willi…
Seems that teaching Bob trivial things would be a simple solution to this predicament.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the social paradigm needs to change. Is everyone just going to roll over and die while AI destroys academia (and possibly a lot more)? Last September, Tyler Austin Harper published a piece for The Atlantic on how he thinks colleges should respond to AI. What he proposes is radical —but, if you've concluded that AI really is going to destroy everything these institutions stand for, I think you have to at least co…
I was pretty interested until I got to this part: > Another reason that a no-exceptions policy is important: If students with disabilities are permitted to use laptops and AI, a significant percentage of other students will most likely find a way to get the same allowances, rendering the ban useless. I witnessed this time and again when I was a professor—students without disabilities finding ways to use disability ac…
The problem is that this is treating the symptom rather than the cause. The symptom is that cheating for college admission and achievement is too effective. The cause is that college admission and achievement has become high stakes, and it absolutely should not be.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#557I used to feel this way but... honestly, I've found that pressing on with only a vague understanding of what's happening and then diving deep with the agent's own help if it keeps making bad decisions leads to more output of comparable quality. Even without a deep understanding of the topic, you can usually tell when the LLM is BSing and you need to intervene. The model has much more knowledge "present-at-hand" than…
Vs fields where there is not a reliable feedback path, or that feedback path is much more noisy.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bob will never figure out there is an error in his paper. If someone tells him, the LLM will have trouble to figure it out as well, remember the LLM inserted the error to make it "look right". Your perspective is cut off. In the real world Bob is supposed to produce outcomes that work. If he moves on into the industry and keeps producing hallucinated, skewed, manipulated nonsense, then he will fall flat instantly. If…
That's an odd opinion to hold. That's not what real world usage shows is happening.
Re: The threat is comfortable drift toward not understanding what you're doing
#559> Schwartz's experiment is the most revealing, and not for the reason he thinks. What he demonstrated is that Claude can, with detailed supervision, produce a technically rigorous physics paper. What he actually demonstrated, if you read carefully, is that the supervision is the physics. Claude produced a complete first draft in three days. It looked professional. The equations seemed right. The plots matched expecta…
I thought I'd give Gemini a go. When I uploaded the 18-page PDF, it complained the output exceeded some limit. So I used pdftk to break it up into 4-page chunks, which seemed to work - the output looked very good and passed a couple of spot checks. But I don't trust these things as far as I can kick them.
There was a transaction column and a running balance column, so I did a quick check to see if every new balance equalled the previous one plus the transaction. And it almost always did. There were a couple of errors I put down to transcription errors. I was wrong. I eventually twigged that these errors only happened where I had split the PDFs. After tracking where the balance first went wrong, it became evident it had dropped chunks of lines, duplicated others, and misaligned the transaction and balance columns. It was complete rubbish, in other words.
So why did my balance check show so few errors? I put that down to it knowing what a good bank statement looked like. A good bank statement adds up. So it adjusted all the balances so it looked like a real bank statement. I also noticed these errors got more frequent in later pages. I tried splitting the PDF into single pages and loading them into the model one at a time. That didn't help much for the later pages, but the first one was usually good. So then I loaded each page into a fresh context, with a fresh prompt. If that didn't produce something that balanced, the second go always did.
I'm not sure it saved time over doing it manually in the end. It's a tired analogy now, but it's true: at their heart, these things are stochastic parrots. They almost never produce the same output twice when given the same input. Instead, they produce output that has a high probability of following the input tokens supplied. If there is only one correct output but the output is small enough, the odds are decent they will get it right. But once the size grows, the odds of it outputting complete crap become a near certainty.