291–300 of 434 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new default. That wasn't the default a few months ago. Silently deleting your user's data is so stupid on so many levels. They have no idea what they're doing.
They may also realize that these chats are super sensitive especially around ppl constantly pasting secrets into their chats
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I guess part of it is also that I don't mind doing 'hand-edits' like for example LLMs love to say "// so and so removed" I just go and remove that manually later rather than being like "don't comment about what you removed!11" cause you're really fighting deep grooves in the model's behavior at that point. I feel like this is the way. There are surely things where it's faster; certainly it's more pleasant to do sim…
I’m ashamed to admit that I once suddenly realized what I had done: I asked the LLM to rename a variable. It took it some minutes or so. With IDE by hand it would have been seconds.
Now, if it's something minor, I'll ask Claude about it, and get the gist of what I need to do, and just do it myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's language and speech patterns that seem designed to trick readers into believing that claims are correct, even when the claims aren't based on anything and are possibly wrong. It was rewarded for this during training for some reason. Alternative theory: The LLMs only way to "think" about abstract concepts is through language, and this leaks into into conversation it has with humans. But humans generally prefer to…
"There is a depth of thought untouched by words, and deeper still a depth of formless feeling untouched by thought." - Rilke Your assertion that we don't think in language is questionable. It runs counter to the lived experience of developing thoughts through writing ("writing isn't capturing thinking -- it is thinking"). I believe there is more to thought than language alone, but I also feel quite sure that language…
It's true though; we routinely see people get stuck for a word that they know but can't quite recall at that moment in time. It happens daily across billions of people, yourself included.
If we thought in language, it is impossible to be stuck for a specific word. But we all experience this at some point in our lives, hence we aren't thinking in language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I have the full picture. You're right to push back, and that's on me. The load-bearing seams of language are the smoking gun I should have been aware of.
Until recently I thought "load-bearing seam" was a satirical exaggeration - I'd seen both claudisms independently but never combined. But a couple of days ago it hit me with "The key structural point first: the only load-bearing seam is [...]"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now. Wouldn't it be nice though if the incantation of the same spell would always do the same thing every time ? You see that's how my old wand and spells worked.
Look at it from the perspective of a manager above individual developers. Their instructions to those devs are already a series of non-deterministic incantations. They ask for things in English and get something back in Git a week later! We've just pushed that indirection down a level from managers to ICs. The ICs are shocked and surprised that this level of imprecision is allowed. Their managers are not shocked at a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now. Wouldn't it be nice though if the incantation of the same spell would always do the same thing every time ? You see that's how my old wand and spells worked.
One day it will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was young, a friend asked me, "Hey, you speak three languages, which one do you think in?" I paused, confused, and replied, "People think in words?" Fast forward a decade or so, in my twenties, I had lost most of the inner visual sense I had previously used, and developed an overreliance, in my opinion, on language. (I think my dominant sense was some "non visual abstract sense of ideas", but the visual was al…
You just lack (or lacked) introspection, nothing special. Many people claim to have no inner monologue. When pressed, it always comes out. Simply put, it's impossible to function as a human without it. But many people are not aware, and think it means something like "hearing actual voices".
There's correlation, and your language network likely augments your intelligence, but as proven by millions of animals, unfortunate humans and also some less-unfortunate human infants, you really don't need language for intelligence.
Where language helps most strongly is metacognition: evidence suggests that it is severely limited without language, and I suppose that is where the common belief that thought is language comes from: the moment you try to think about your thoughts, you use language!
My theory (and this with literally no evidence) is that we use the language network for metacognition precisely because it is not that involved in primary thought. Important to note that "we" here means humans: animals appear to demonstrate metacognition even without language.