21–30 of 184 posts
"Thus, anyone who wants to corral that kind of entity and make it do their bidding? Yeah, they want slaves." Always comes to mind when I see Elon and friends getting excited about AI robots. Slavery was more about economics than the role-playing.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w31758
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/nations-dont-get-rich-by-plund...
> The worst part is that everyone who's decided to willingly lobotomize themselves is going to have to come to the realization that these things are full of shit. It'll have to happen one by one, and nobody else can make it happen for them. A fascinating dichotomy has become apparent between those who trust LLM output and those who don’t and don’t understand why you would. Surely if the machine you go to for answers…
Making things up is only really a common issue on the non-thinking models which nobody should be using. The regular chatbots are Autogooglers and are very useful for research. This is just not a good argument anymore. Edit: Guys, why are we downvoting this? Does no one use like ChatGPT or Claude and understand how it works? Do you all think its regularly hallucinating links still? Is everyone on HN using like free si…
Could the article "The Stack" the user was looking for have been 'What is "the stack"?' by Julia Evans? https://web.archive.org/web/20160305142512/https://jvns.ca/b...
it exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a distinct line between when I'm willing to believe an LLM's output and when I'm not: whether I would believe the same thing from an anonymous Internet forum post or a blogger I don't know. Those posts are not unlikely to be misinformed, biased, lies, or otherwise untrustworthy. And yet, I spent plenty of years honing a sense of when they were good enough for certain things.
A lot of that sense was probably based on side channels like proper grammar, writing style, etc. That’s all gone now :(
> The worst part is that everyone who's decided to willingly lobotomize themselves is going to have to come to the realization that these things are full of shit. It'll have to happen one by one, and nobody else can make it happen for them. A fascinating dichotomy has become apparent between those who trust LLM output and those who don’t and don’t understand why you would. Surely if the machine you go to for answers…
When Linus posted that AIs and vibecoding were here to stay and declared resistance to it as harmful, I stopped to consider whether I was wrong, but it has made me realize that in retrospect Linus Torvalds and Linux itself aren't actually the holy grail of computing. I didn't feel that way with Richard Dawkins, its not like falling for an AI psychosis retroactively made me question The Selfish Gene, but now I'm looking at linux and the theory that it's a clusterfuck is gaining so much traction, especially after copy.fail and ensuing rustification, I see so much clearly now. It was never about linux, UNIX sure, POSIX, yeah, GNU fucking aye, kernel? Ok whatever, drivers and scheduler with a gajillion lines of code I guess.
I see the same thing with LLMs in software development. If you say "find a bug in this code" it will regularly confabulate bugs. If you ask it for a test-case, run the output through some deterministic thing that tries the test-cases, and tells the LLM it's wrong, the output of that system will mostly be legitimate bugs[1].
For now, transformer-based generative AIs seem at a minimum like a very useful tool for dealing with "squishy" problems when you have some way to validate their output. Many of the 404's to the blog are probably people validating the output of generative AI, which is the opposite of the inference made in TFA.
1: It will also occasionally hack your test-runner; I suppose that's also finding bugs, just not in the software you wanted to find bugs for.
There's really no content in this post other than the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots. That was a live debate two years ago. It's a very strange thing to write in 2026.
"Thus, anyone who wants to corral that kind of entity and make it do their bidding? Yeah, they want slaves." Always comes to mind when I see Elon and friends getting excited about AI robots. Slavery was more about economics than the role-playing.
> The worst part is that everyone who's decided to willingly lobotomize themselves is going to have to come to the realization that these things are full of shit. It'll have to happen one by one, and nobody else can make it happen for them. A fascinating dichotomy has become apparent between those who trust LLM output and those who don’t and don’t understand why you would. Surely if the machine you go to for answers…
> The worst part is that everyone who's decided to willingly lobotomize themselves is going to have to come to the realization that these things are full of shit. It'll have to happen one by one, and nobody else can make it happen for them. A fascinating dichotomy has become apparent between those who trust LLM output and those who don’t and don’t understand why you would. Surely if the machine you go to for answers…
Nowadays not just big orgs are falling into the delusion, but also big people. When Linus posted that AIs and vibecoding were here to stay and declared resistance to it as harmful, I stopped to consider whether I was wrong, but it has made me realize that in retrospect Linus Torvalds and Linux itself aren't actually the holy grail of computing. I didn't feel that way with Richard Dawkins, its not like falling for an…