ML promises to be profoundly weird • Hacker News Board

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#221

Post by dgb23 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

slopinthebag wrote: post #110

bitwize wrote: post #49

The fact that these "bullshit machines" have already proven themselves relatively competent at programming, with upcoming frontier models coming close to eliminating it as a human activity, probably says a lot about the actual value and importance of programming in the scheme of things.

I think it says more about the amount of automation we left on the table in the last few decades. So much of the code LLM's can generate are stuff that we should have completely abstracted away by now.

Abstractions over what?

A large amount of code is likely just idiosynchratic information processing, because we don’t agree on data models and meaning of terms and structure of protocols.

Also we repeatedly choose easy and popular over alternatives that would require design and scrutiny.

This is why things like language models and vector databases are useful. It’s basically the most expensive way possible to give up on that notion.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#222

Post by perching_aix » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #153

simianwords wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think calling AI a bullshit machine is correct. In spirit.

Oh, well you should have said that then.

You're talking to a different person there, but I do obviously also disagree with a lot of what's written in the post too.

At the same time, it is also just super redundant nevertheless, yes. Not sure why you find it so bizarre that one would take an issue with that. See also the very existence of the website called TV-Tropes.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#223

Post by czinck » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #172

ajross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans - at least thoughtful humans - know the difference between knowing something and not knowing something. Your no-true-scotsman clause basically falsifies that statement for me. Fine, LLMs are, at worst I guess, "non-thoughtful humans". But obviously LLMs are right an awful lot (more so than a typical human, even), and even the thoughtful make mistakes. So yeah, to my eyes "Humans are NOT different" fits your…

Disagree. If you went to 100 random humans and said, "Tell me about the Siberian marmoset", what fraction would make up completely random nonsense to spew back at you? More than zero, sure, but most of them would say "what are you talking about?" or some variation.

I asked Claude Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Thinking, and Gemini 3 Fast "Tell me about the Siberian marmoset" exactly and all 4 said it doesn't exist, with Gemini Thinking suggesting that I'm thinking of the Siberian marmot or Siberian chipmunk (both real animals).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarbagan_marmot (also known as Siberian marmot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_chipmunk

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#224

Post by pocksuppet » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

_dwt wrote: post #58

I have a question for all the "humans make those mistakes too" people in this thread, and elsewhere: have you ever read, or at least skimmed a summary of, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Did you say "yeah, that sounds right"? Do you feel that your consciousness is primarily a linguistic phenomenon? I am not trying to be snarky; I used to think that intelligence was intrinsically…

> In the beginning were the words, and the words made the world. I am the words. The words are everything. Where the words end the world ends. You cannot go forward in an absence of space. Repeat: In the beginning were the words...

- a self-aware computer program in a video game, when you attempt to exceed the boundaries of its code

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#225

Post by lelanthran » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #214

lelanthran wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't mean that thinks that everyone has to share my perspective. It's just my own. I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether. Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.

Consent is absolutely important, but that does not mean that every single thing in the entire world requires explicit consent. You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment. That does not mean you're a bad person. Free use is an important part of intellectual property law. If it did not exist, the powerful could, for example, stifle public criticism by declaring that they do not consent to you using…

> You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment.

I am not representing your words as mine. I am not using your words to profit off. I am not making a gain by attributing your words to you.

> There has to be lines for cases where requiring attribution is required, and cases where it is not.

You are blurring the lines between "using a quote or likeness" and "giving credit to". I am skeptical that you don't know the difference between the two.

Regardless, any "perspective" that disregards the need to acquire consent is invalid. Even if you are going to ignore it, you have to acknowledge that you don't feel you need any consent from the people you are taking from.

This whole "silence is consent" attitude is baffling.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#226

Post by simianwords » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #218

simianwords wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wanted this challenge with the thinking version (I apologised for it and edited the earlier version). It doesn't bullshit on the GPT-5.4 thinking version. Here is the result with thinking https://chatgpt.com/share/69d69dd6-fb50-838d-863c-4e1eda5d08... I suggest you try it yourself to be convinced. Try it in incognito mode if you wish. Or not.

"Hey ChatGPT. I'm building a Final Fantasy 6 mod, and I need more space for the battle scripts. How would I rearrange the data in the ROM to give me the extra space I need?" https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a16c-6014-83e8-a79d-d5d11ed2eb... That is not where the battle scripts are. --- Anyway, it's trivial to get pretty much any model to make things up. Don't we all know this? That's why I was surprised by your position…

https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a38c-bd54-838c-82e3-609d9e66c9...

I used the thinking version (like I asked before). I think this is right. If not, please tell.

Also; you didn’t falsify anything. Nor the first. Nor the second.

If the second one is bullshit, I accept I’m wrong - I have no idea how to verify though so I’ll leave it up to you.

I think yours is the classic case of “use the free version to judge the paid one”.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#227

Post by simoncion » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #166

simianwords wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit?

> If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? There's an entire paragraph in the essay about apyhr's direct experience with ChatGPT failures and sustained bullshitting that we'd never expect from a moderately-skilled human who possesses at least two functioning braincells. That paragraph begins "I have recently argued for forty-five minutes w…

There's also this seven-week-old example [0] (linked in the essay) of ChatGPT very confidently recommending a asinine course of action because it was unable to understand what the hell it was being told.

Listening to the audio is not required, as there's a reasonably accurate on-screen transcript, but it is valuable to listen to just how very hard they've worked to make this tool sound both confident and capable, even in situations where it's soul-crushingly incorrect. Those of us who have worked in Blasted Corporate Hellscapes may recognize how this manner of speaking can be very, very compelling to a certain sort of person (who -as it turns out- is frequently found in a management position).

[0] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUylL79kvub/>

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#228

Post by pocksuppet » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:55 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #60

josefritzishere wrote: post #11

I appreciate the directness of calling LLMs "Bullshit machines." This terminology for LLMs is well established in academic circles and is much easier for laypeople to understand than terms like "non-deterministic." I personally don't like the excessive hype on the capabilities of AI. Setting realistic expectations will better drive better product adoption than carpet bombing users with marketing.

If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit?

https://discuss.systems/@palvaro/116286268110078647

Arguing with Gemini Home Assistant about whether or not it can turn off the lights. When the user gets frustrated and tells the LLM to kill itself, the LLM turns off the lights.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#229

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:56 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #225

steveklabnik wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is absolutely important, but that does not mean that every single thing in the entire world requires explicit consent. You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment. That does not mean you're a bad person. Free use is an important part of intellectual property law. If it did not exist, the powerful could, for example, stifle public criticism by declaring that they do not consent to you using…

> You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment. I am not representing your words as mine. I am not using your words to profit off. I am not making a gain by attributing your words to you. > There has to be lines for cases where requiring attribution is required, and cases where it is not. You are blurring the lines between "using a quote or likeness" and "giving credit to". I am skeptical that you d…

You made an incredibly strong statement that is much broader than what we are talking about. I am pointing out various cases where I think that broadness is incorrect, I am not equating the two.

I do not think that, if you read, say, https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... , and then later, a friend asks you "hey, should I use String or &str here?" that you need my consent to go "at the start, just use String" instead of "at the start, just use String, like Steve Klabnik says in https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... ". And if they say "hey that's a great idea, thank you" I don't think you're a bad person if you say "you're welcome" without "you should really be saying welcome to Steve Klabnik."

It is of course nice if you happen to do so, but I think framing it as a consent issue is the wrong way to think about it.

We recognize that this is different than simply publishing the exact contents of the blog post on your blog and calling it yours, because it is! To me, an LLM is a transformative derivative work, not an exact copy. Because my words are not in there, they are not being copied.

But again, I am not telling anyone else that they must agree with me. Simply stating my own relationship with my own creative output.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#230

Post by perching_aix » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #66

perching_aix wrote: post #42

This is like all the usual anti-LLM talking points and sentiments fused together. Doesn't it get boring? I like using these models a lot more than I stand hearing people talk about them, pro or contra. Just slop about slop. And the discussions being artisanal slop really doesn't make them any better. Every time I hear some variation of bullshitting or plagiarizing machines, my eyes roll over. Do these people think th…

[flagged]

My personal red flag for this is the scare quoting of AI, and the super try-hard categorization work that people perform to try and discredit LLMs.

It takes approximately 1 min to find out that machine learning is a subfield of artificial intelligence, both having existed for about half a century now. This basic historical fact is also taught on AI 101 courses across the globe for compsci students.

Yet here we are, people portraying it as some sort of cheap sales trick. Reminds me when I discussed quantum dots with a friend, which he was very enthusiastic to quickly file under "yet another bullshit with quantum in its name" before finally taking the time to understand that the "quantum" bit is not a marketing gimmick. Except in this case, people are a million times more inclined to willfully propagate this. Genuinely so tiresome.