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

LLMs Are Complicated Now

ianbarber.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#11

Post by skydhash »

lproven wrote: post #5
christopherwxyz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s written by AI.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

I don’t think TFA is written by AI.

But AI written pieces do have a certain feeling. A sort of saccatto in the succession of ideas that does not feel natural. They emphasize certain points, and you as a reader, you just wonder why is that. There is the “This thing, not just that thing”. There are also the three successive propositions (mostly in one sentences) to accentuate an idea and “Negation. Strong positive idea in the same direction”.

In general try reading one (vocally) to yourself and it will feel really weird.

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#12

Post by rizky05 »

christopherwxyz wrote: post #4
charcircuit wrote: post #3

Why didn't this author compare Llama 3 with GLM 5.2 (released 1 week ago) which is a more standard attention based LLM? To compare 2 separate families of LLMs and then pointing out that they are different is not a surprising result and detracts from the point the author is trying to make. https://sebastianraschka.com/llm-architecture-gallery/?compa... If you look at it, the diagrams are very similar, but the main dif…

It’s written by AI.

[dead]

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#13

Post by girvo »

lproven wrote: post #5
christopherwxyz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s written by AI.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

I’m not sure if it is written by an LLM, but anything being called “load-bearing” (formatted that way and all) sets off my alarm bells

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#14

Post by ekidd »

lproven wrote: post #5
christopherwxyz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s written by AI.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

Claude's writing style is at least as distinctive as any human's personal style. It has a long list of favorite words, verbal tics and common structures. On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style.

Some days, I spend over 4 hours a day reading walls of text written by Claude. If I couldn't recognize Claude's default "voice" by now, something would be wrong. It would be like a Hemingway fan not being able to recognize Hemingway. Except more so, because Claude's writing style is getting worse from version to version, descending into self parody.

On the statistical side, Pangram's model identifies AI-authored text with a 1-in-5,000 false positive rate, measured against hold-out texts from before 2022. My "ear" also agrees closely with Pangram. If I think something sounds AI written, Pangram virtually always comes back with "AI, confidence: high."

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#15

Post by hnhg »

lproven wrote: post #5
christopherwxyz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s written by AI.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

You need to start using LLMs a lot and then you will know how we know.

Edit: You know how you can recognise someone just from their gait while they walk towards you? I would struggle to describe that for an individual person but it doesn't mean I can't identify them from that alone.

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#16

Post by Philpax »

christopherwxyz wrote: post #4
charcircuit wrote: post #3

Why didn't this author compare Llama 3 with GLM 5.2 (released 1 week ago) which is a more standard attention based LLM? To compare 2 separate families of LLMs and then pointing out that they are different is not a surprising result and detracts from the point the author is trying to make. https://sebastianraschka.com/llm-architecture-gallery/?compa... If you look at it, the diagrams are very similar, but the main dif…

It’s written by AI.

I am _very_ familiar with Claudish, and to some extent, the other AIs' writing styles. This article is human-written and features human writing quirks.

The very first sentence

> Back in 2022 and 2023 there were two big branches of machine learning happening at Meta.

is unmistakably human. That's not how a LLM would phrase this sentence, and if it did, it would have put a comma after 2023.

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#17

Post by mirekrusin »

ekidd wrote: post #14
lproven wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

Claude's writing style is at least as distinctive as any human's personal style. It has a long list of favorite words, verbal tics and common structures. On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style. Some days, I spend over 4 hours a day reading walls of text written by Claude. If I couldn't recognize Claude's default "voice" by now…

That reply was AI written.

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#19

Post by roenxi »

ekidd wrote: post #14
lproven wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…

Claude's writing style is at least as distinctive as any human's personal style. It has a long list of favorite words, verbal tics and common structures. On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style. Some days, I spend over 4 hours a day reading walls of text written by Claude. If I couldn't recognize Claude's default "voice" by now…

Claude's default voice, yes. But I'd assume a lot of people have learned to prompt it to something other than its default style. IMO it is good practice to have a style guide to feed in with the prompt.

> On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style.

This point is interesting because it raises the question of what "LLM writing" actually is. If it is expanding a smaller prompt into a larger article then yes, by construction the information density is low. But it can also be used to take a semi-coherent stream of consciousness and turn it into something readable and the people using it that way might already have started to slip under the radar.

This is a lot like how the criminals seem especially stupid because the ones who get caught are disproportionately the stupid ones. The easily detectable LLM writers are going to be the lazy ones.

Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now

#20

Post by segmondy »

charcircuit wrote: post #3

Why didn't this author compare Llama 3 with GLM 5.2 (released 1 week ago) which is a more standard attention based LLM? To compare 2 separate families of LLMs and then pointing out that they are different is not a surprising result and detracts from the point the author is trying to make. https://sebastianraschka.com/llm-architecture-gallery/?compa... If you look at it, the diagrams are very similar, but the main dif…

The author is correct, the model architecture is now much more complicated. You can see this if you use llama.cpp and follow the project. The earlier models were always fully implemented. Yet with more contributors, as of today tons of latest models only have partial implementation. DeepSeekv3.2 isn't fully implemented, same with KimiK2.6, GLM5.2+, DeepSeekv4 has no implementation, MiniMaxM3 not supported yet, Hy3-preview no implementation. The latest models are just bare bones to run with lots of support missing for the advanced features.
Post reply on HN