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

What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

agrillo.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#31

Post by skippyfish »

chungusamongus wrote: post #24
101008 wrote: post #19

It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

Discourse as we know it doesn't work if the cost of producing an infinite supply of arguments is essentially zero, while the cost of reading them and arguing with them remains high. Unless you want my LLM to get back to your LLM.

And this is a problem on HN today. There are powerful incentives to generate provocative opinion pieces just for clicks. I've seen websites on HN that seemingly took the human entirely out of the equation and just post a nearly identical op-ed every day on a fixed schedule. What's the point of engaging with that?

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#32

Post by hightrix »

chungusamongus wrote: post #27
wk_end wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at no point did they say that the argument was invalid; just that they couldn't stand reading it.

[flagged]

It may be lazy, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.

Take a writing by someone using the tone of Kevin from The Office, “Me think, why waste time say lot word, when few word do trick.” Would you read an argument written in this tone regardless of the content, topic, or position?

You write for your audience.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#33

Post by jazzpush2 »

chungusamongus wrote: post #24
101008 wrote: post #19

It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

If you expect my effort to read your work, I expect your effort to write it.

Really that simple.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#34

Post by wk_end »

chungusamongus wrote: post #27
wk_end wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at no point did they say that the argument was invalid; just that they couldn't stand reading it.

[flagged]

A few years ago I tried to make it through The Critique of Pure Reason, but had to stop because - as many people famously do - I found Kant's writing too abstruse.

In saying that, I'm not dismissing the Transcendental Deduction, I'm just saying that I wish Kant was a better writer.

No one's under an obligation to engage with an argument, and given the choice of whether or not to engage with a poorly written, clichéd, machine-generated one, most people wouldn't be interested enough to bother. Complaining about laziness here is pretty ironic, actually.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#35

Post by bilalnpe »

chungusamongus wrote: post #27
wk_end wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at no point did they say that the argument was invalid; just that they couldn't stand reading it.

[flagged]

Yeah, no one is obligated to engage with it. They did not dismiss the argument but refused to engage with it.

This is totally valid and the point is to send a signal to the “writers”.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#37

Post by Kim_Bruning »

chungusamongus wrote: post #24
101008 wrote: post #19

It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

You're not wrong some of the time. That said, did you manage to get through it, and can you explain what the argument was?

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#38

Post by chungusamongus »

jazzpush2 wrote: post #33
chungusamongus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

If you expect my effort to read your work, I expect your effort to write it. Really that simple.

You are assuming because someone used an llm to help articulate the argument, that it did not require effort to formulate. That's fallacious.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#39

Post by skeledrew »

101008 wrote: post #19

It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)

I found it an engrossing read. LLMs are good writers, and that was a good - beginning of a - story.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#40

Post by danielbln »

marci wrote: post #12

Makes me wonnder... how much compute/storage there's in all the satellites currently in LEO combined.

I would wager not a lot. There are some real hard constraints in space, from power consumption, to weight to thermal output (lack of convection is a real PITA for thermal shedding), and the list goes on.
Post reply on HN