[flagged]
LLMs Are Complicated Now
41–50 of 86 posts
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#42[flagged]
That does not seem to be related to llms? It is more about the harness that utilizes them, right?
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#43Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#44[flagged]
If you think statefull LLMs would be easier to handle then stateless... Then I think you haven't done a lot of software engineering
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can just prompt an llm to make causal grammar mistakes
Leaving out that comma is not a grammar mistake. The comma slightly changes the feel of the sentence, but it's not wrong to include or omit it. But yeah, I agree with the other commenter that AI would be less likely than a human to omit the comma.
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#46It's the bitter-lesson to feature-engineering lifecycle. When a technique or technology is new people are making massive gains by just applying it to some use case, or gathering more data for training, or giving it more resources. As time goes on those "bitter lesson" gains start to hit the shallow part of the logistic curve and companies have to start investing more and more effort into engineering for each small, i…
I got a very different message from this, actually much closer to the problem of incumbent advantage.
The known-good thing has been heavily optimized for performance, making it much harder for new technologies to prove that they are better. This is similar to the problem of gas vs electric engines - we had a century of optimization and ecosystem development around gas engines, which creates an uphill battle for electric motors even though they are (eventually) superior on every way /except/ having that massive ecosystem.
The problem isn't as bad here, because software is much more flexible than hardware, and scaling laws give a reasonable way to try things out at smaller scale before going whole hog.
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Just like em-dashes, some people have always done these though. Why are they penalized with immediate AI slop witch hunts? The LLMs didn't come up with these tics out of thin air.
> ust like em-dashes, some people have always done these though.
Everytime someone claims that they have always written like this I grab a pre-2022 post of theirs and five both to a few SOTA chatbots and ask "did the same writer author both these texts".
Thus far I have never gotten a "likely" response.
If the author truly did not use an AI to write something, then it is more likely that theybhave spent so much time conversing with their LLM than reading human authored material that they now sound like an LLM.
This specific article, though, doesn't look anything like LLM output.
PS. Isn't it odd how all LLMs have converged on the same speech patterns, patterns which resemble almost no human authored material outside of high-pressure sales techniques?
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[dead]
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#49It's the bitter-lesson to feature-engineering lifecycle. When a technique or technology is new people are making massive gains by just applying it to some use case, or gathering more data for training, or giving it more resources. As time goes on those "bitter lesson" gains start to hit the shallow part of the logistic curve and companies have to start investing more and more effort into engineering for each small, i…
[deleted]
Re: LLMs Are Complicated Now
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just prompt an llm to make causal grammar mistakes
Leaving out that comma is not a grammar mistake. The comma slightly changes the feel of the sentence, but it's not wrong to include or omit it. But yeah, I agree with the other commenter that AI would be less likely than a human to omit the comma.
An adverbial clause at the front of a sentence should have a comma? Or is that not what it is?