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

Various LLM Smells

shvbsle.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 312 posts

Re: Various LLM Smells

#21

Post by dieselgate »

jkdufair wrote: post #9
dvt wrote: post #6

It's kind of interesting how genuinely hard it is to get models to deviate from basically all of these tropes. You can straight up tell it "I hate that card design, do something different, get creative!" and it'll do something either (a) ugly as sin (clearly just essentially a random walk through parameters) or (b) some same-y derivation of that card. In coding, I've noticed a few tropes as well: everything is a "con…

If claude says "load bearing" once more, I think I'll vomit.

That's a funny one. I don't use LLMs at all but "load bearing" is such a common/over-used internet joke for DIY building projects and stuff like "load bearing caulk". Have never heard it in a software sense really so am slightly perplexed

Re: Various LLM Smells

#22

Post by dvt »

jkdufair wrote: post #9
dvt wrote: post #6

It's kind of interesting how genuinely hard it is to get models to deviate from basically all of these tropes. You can straight up tell it "I hate that card design, do something different, get creative!" and it'll do something either (a) ugly as sin (clearly just essentially a random walk through parameters) or (b) some same-y derivation of that card. In coding, I've noticed a few tropes as well: everything is a "con…

If claude says "load bearing" once more, I think I'll vomit.

Hah, ChatGPT constantly says "that's real" or "less about X, more about Y."

Re: Various LLM Smells

#23

Post by gchamonlive »

skydhash wrote: post #14
Planktonne wrote: post #8

> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.

I dabble in drawing and I find LLM images (and maybe some non LLM one) abhorrent. As for why, the reason I can think of are: no consistency (perspective, small details, and color theory) and too much details making it a visual noise. In most painting, the artist will have a subject that is most detailed (to draw the eyes) and from there, the lost of details will follow some kind of logic. This is how you pinpoint wha…

It's like a gross looking slice of pizza, it's mindbending because at first it looks good, after all it's pizza, but something in it makes it really disgusting

Re: Various LLM Smells

#24

Post by 1970-01-01 »

The LLM doesn't smell like authentic writing but it does a great job for fast and cheap words. We've gained something similar to fast food. Words made very cheap, very fast, easily digestible, but they have no emotion. In short stints it does have a place in the world.

Re: Various LLM Smells

#25

Post by sublinear »

xienze wrote: post #20
dvt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I can't fathom thinking that LLM writing is even remotely passable. People that think this should honestly read more. One book a month is hardly an aspirational goal. You don't even have to read Melville or Hemingway or Chaucer or Shakespeare, just pick up any popular NYT best seller, and it'll be significantly better than anything an LLM can generate.

> I can't fathom thinking that LLM writing is even remotely passable. People that think this should honestly read more. This makes me think you're only exposing yourself to high quality writing online and from an intelligent circle of friends and coworkers. The average person's reading and writing abilities are _atrocious_ and only getting worse. We're almost at the point where kids are communicating through abbrevia…

Are we also saying it's acceptable to feed people junk because it's better than what they would cook?

At some point you're just making bad excuses for false scarcity.

Re: Various LLM Smells

#26

Post by gchamonlive »

dvt wrote: post #11
Planktonne wrote: post #8

> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.

Honestly, I can't fathom thinking that LLM writing is even remotely passable. People that think this should honestly read more. One book a month is hardly an aspirational goal. You don't even have to read Melville or Hemingway or Chaucer or Shakespeare, just pick up any popular NYT best seller, and it'll be significantly better than anything an LLM can generate.

Really hard to take your comment serious when the only post on dvt.name is a hello world page, because at least OP is trying to publish and you are lacking moral high ground to judge him thinking LLM writing is good.

Re: Various LLM Smells

#27

Post by GrinningFool »

n42 wrote: post #2

No ___, no ____. Just _____ or using "honest" to describe an approach.

Jab, jab, thrust is how I think about that pattern. Or tap tap whack, if you prefer. And it shows up for for positives too:

"Smooth. Effortless. A perfect fit for your needs".

In any style of informal or persuasive writing this shows up , as if it has to drive the point in.

I kind of wish we'd stop talking openly about what the tells are. It's nice to be able to determine with fair accuracy - but it couldn't last forever.

Re: Various LLM Smells

#29

Post by dvt »

gchamonlive wrote: post #26
dvt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I can't fathom thinking that LLM writing is even remotely passable. People that think this should honestly read more. One book a month is hardly an aspirational goal. You don't even have to read Melville or Hemingway or Chaucer or Shakespeare, just pick up any popular NYT best seller, and it'll be significantly better than anything an LLM can generate.

Really hard to take your comment serious when the only post on dvt.name is a hello world page, because at least OP is trying to publish and you are lacking moral high ground to judge him thinking LLM writing is good.

Lol my blog was hacked recently and I've been lazy about moving my backed-up mySQL DB to the new WP installation. Not sure where moral high ground enters the picture. If I really wanted to be an asshole, I'd cite a book I co-wrote and another I edited.

Re: Various LLM Smells

#30

Post by flatline »

Planktonne wrote: post #8

> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.

I don't disagree about the probability, but the current frontier models are not completely useless for writing even in areas where I have significant knowledge. I would not have said that a year ago. You have to watch them like a hawk -- they are good at spitting out plausible sounding nonsense that is hard even for an expert to discern. But the dice roll going on behind the scenes is continually more biased towards being correct/useful than not.
Post reply on HN