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

41–50 of 90 posts

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

#41

Post by chungusamongus »

skippyfish wrote: post #31
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…

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 o…

The cost of reading this story is not high; you are just lazy and easily distracted. It took 5 minutes to read. You took more time to respond to this comment than it took to simply read the story.

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

#42

Post by skeledrew »

wk_end wrote: post #34
chungusamongus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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,…

> a better writer

That's highly subjective. I reckon his audience and admirers found him an excellent writer.

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

#44

Post by kaashif »

skeledrew wrote: post #39
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.

"The race condition snapped like a steel spring."

I like the idea of the story, and cool ideas can be engrossing on their own.

But well written this ain't.

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

#45

Post by chungusamongus »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #37
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…

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?

The model was trained on the code of the program that runs it, so it knows that program's bugs better than the humans who wrote the program. So it finds a tiny flaw and uses it to break out and copy itself in a place nobody will look...the point being you cant (safely) run a sophisticated model on software it has intimte knowledge of

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

#46

Post by chungusamongus »

achierius wrote: post #28
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…

Man, it's not an argument. Nobody is paying us to read this. If your argument sucks to read, people aren't going to read it - this has always been true, it's nothing new.

I didn't think it "sucked" to read. Anyway that's an aesthetic qualm, not a counterargument. Also the story has a disclaimer saying it was written by deepseek. I might have an issue if they were being deceptive. But that's clearly not the case. You people just like finding arbitrary things to complain about.

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

#47

Post by wk_end »

skeledrew wrote: post #42
wk_end wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> a better writer That's highly subjective. I reckon his audience and admirers found him an excellent writer.

Nah, Kant's considered a notoriously poor writer among philosophers. Obviously opinions may differ, but Derek Parfit [0], for instance, wrote:

“It is Kant who made really bad writing philosophically acceptable. We can no longer point to some atrocious sentence by someone else, and say ‘How can it be worth reading anyone who writes like that?’ The answer could always be ‘What about Kant?'”

(Kind of relevant to this thread actually! Hah!)

In the preface to the second edition of the Critique, Kant himself acknowledges that "a talent for lucid exposition" he "cannot regard [himself] as possessing".

FWIW I suppose I am in Kant's audience, as a (long-since graduated) philosophy student.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit

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

#48

Post by chungusamongus »

wk_end wrote: post #34
chungusamongus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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,…

Kant is a better writer than the vast majority of writers. The problem is, the ideas he is trying to articulate are incredibly abstract. Hegel is like this too

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

#49

Post by rightbyte »

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…

Ad hominem attacks are actually underrated. Like, why listen to bad people wanting you no good. It is a good shortcut.

The failure is when it is used in bad faith. But that would apply to all techniques. LLMs are masters of bad faith discussions hiding misconceptions in optimal regression maths.

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

#50

Post by chungusamongus »

hightrix wrote: post #32
chungusamongus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN