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

I'm becoming AI-blind

cymerys.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 533 posts

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#311

Post by figers »

buzzin__ wrote: post #279
figers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fair reply to an hour video, Scott is just so good to hear his talk is better than I can explain it... go to 24 minutes and 07 seconds. it's statistically determining what the next word should be based on all the text it's been trained on. It's not intelligence and he shows what probability it puts on each word that it chooses, but also shows a lot of the other words it was thinking of using. In a later part he shows…

Ok, I want to thank you for finally giving us a concrete falsifiable statement that we can check. I pretended Marseille 40 times before asking Luna 5.6, and the answer was Paris. So, even with concrete examples, model haters are still wrong. You also imply the claim that making the distribution of words as the possible next one visible, somehow makes the whole system not intelligent. I would say the exact opposite is…

No he says in the actual talk which model it occurred on and it was an older model he was using that caused that to occur with Marseille. They have since corrected it from doing that anymore. It was only used to illustrate the prediction machine that it is...

I don't see the many weighted words as a weakness, I see it opening up what's under the hood of the prediction machine that it is.

LLMs are very cool tech, definitely not a model hater, the use case on when to use it makes a difference, it's not AGI.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#312

Post by aaroninsf »

ITT still, among the highly technical, a surprising incomprehension of the fact that describing LLM in terms of "token prediction" and dismissing this as statistical,

neatly dodges literally everything that is interesting about what they do.

You to, friend, consume inputs and generate outputs.

What's interesting is how you do that, and, if you prefer to look at it through a technician's lens, whether or not what is done is reducible.

I don't mean quantizing the model, great, now you have a crankshaft with no oil. But the motion of the pistons and wheels is roughly the same.

What I mean is, to put it in plain terms, the only way you find out what a model is going to "predict" from a given input is to ask it.

If your mental model is still that LLM are "glorified overhyped giant markov chains" performing "parroting" you need to improve your understanding.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#313

Post by m3kw9 »

if you go on x.com you will see that, most of the video/photos are likely AI, and is fatiguing to trying to filter it. Probably why Nikita left, he know that sht is going down

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#314

Post by jongjong »

tlkn_bot_praxis wrote: post #290
jongjong wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think a bad prompt can create an output which is meaningless. I had such experience reviewing a software architecture diagram generated by Claude. Worse, I noticed that people in an office environment themselves have adopted a more speculative, communication style. In the past, people remembered what was said and would draw attention to discrepancies. I could trust what people said. Nowadays it's like; someone…

I've noticed this too. Because people are generating work so quickly , and maybe not understanding it entirely, then they hit a bug, pivot, and pretend it was the plan the whole time. Or drop something they were very excited about 3 days ago and never speak of it again.

There is a lot more hustling and bravado.

It feels like people don't value knowledge as they used to.

It's really hard to avoid mistakes when everyone is subtly covering them up. It feels like a lack of care and I find it demotivating.

I think because engineers are afraid for their job, they are under more pressure to talk a big game. Also under more pressure to deliver short term visible results. Bad combo.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#315

Post by figers »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #299
figers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fair reply to an hour video, Scott is just so good to hear his talk is better than I can explain it... go to 24 minutes and 07 seconds. it's statistically determining what the next word should be based on all the text it's been trained on. It's not intelligence and he shows what probability it puts on each word that it chooses, but also shows a lot of the other words it was thinking of using. In a later part he shows…

>Human intelligence doesn't get confused like that That's not really the point though right, nobody is arguing they are Humans. I have no doubt that if a flying saucer landed on my lawn and started talking to me like Gemini I would describe the aliens as intelligent.

People are arguing it's human level intelligence...

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#316

Post by smohare »

layla5alive wrote: post #300
jaccola wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn’t been passed and no one cares about it because it’s basically an end goal. No lab can hit it so they can’t juice the crazy Turing benchmark 3000 for marketing. If someone sat me down today with an LLM and a human and both were trying to prove to me they were human, and I can have conversations of arbitrary length, I’d get it right every time.

The test was not "after thousands of hours of conversing with them, knowing they're AI, THEN see if you can tell them apart blindly." Were 2010 you to be in a real turing test with an arbitrary erudite human and a 2026 frontier LLM, not knowing LLMs existed, you'd probably struggle

I doubt this entirely. It might be quite difficult for said human to discern whether a simple passage were generated sans such accumulated experience in reading AI text, true. But LLMs do not converse like humans in ways that have always been essentially immediately obvious.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#317

Post by layla5alive »

buzzin__ wrote: post #268
mythrwy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While being very capable, AI is missing something required for true intelligence and I struggle to explain exactly what it is I see missing. It's not really "creativity" because much of that always was derivative in my opinion. And LLMs are (for some definition of the word) fairly creative as far as taking known elements and re-arranging them. I think what is missing is sort of a world model building capability. As h…

So, right of the bat, you are warning us that you are going to apply the " no true Sscottman" fallacy, and that we should brace ourselves. Yes, models posses intelligence, but it is not a true one. Then you claim that models do not posses world-building capabilities. But this is simply not true. Even ignoring the whole subgenre of scientific papers on exactly that subject, it is not that hard to build some hypothetic…

Yes. And they are criticizing a model for not having a default mode network - as if that is some impossibility rather than just an artifact of the current iteration of the specific architectures we have built so far. Why do people paint with these broad brushes over relatively specific complaints?

LLMs are likely for machine intelligence something like drosophila are to biological intelligence - relatively early on the high dimensional spectrum of possibility. Though it stikes me that in a different way they're little alike - drosophila are relatively small and efficient.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#318

Post by mythrwy »

mythrwy wrote: post #232
pyridines wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't accept that it possesses no intelligence. It is not equivalent to human intelligence, obviously, but how can a system without some semblance of rational thinking solve open math problems? Even composing earlier human work into something novel requires intelligence and understanding on some level.

While being very capable, AI is missing something required for true intelligence and I struggle to explain exactly what it is I see missing. It's not really "creativity" because much of that always was derivative in my opinion. And LLMs are (for some definition of the word) fairly creative as far as taking known elements and re-arranging them. I think what is missing is sort of a world model building capability. As h…

I'll restate because both objections (which apparently skim instead of read) are missing the important point. Yes LLMs can run "what ifs" scenarios and build models.

However LLMs deal entirely in symbols. 100%. Humans can "world build" aside from this and in fact are often at their best doing so.

Did the first humans to use fire and some form of a wheel even have the capability to talk about it? Think about that.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#319

Post by andai »

TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #59
causal wrote: post #30

There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…

The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can…

A decent correlation engine is still extraordinarily valuable for science, investing, prediction, etc. Plenty of human minds are strong in the same area.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#320

Post by getnormality »

I find that typical human content has about 5% information density, while typical AI content is about 1%. AI is much worse, but the same extreme skimming techniques apply to both. In both cases I'm like "I have no idea why you had to say all those words to make this point, but let's get on with it."
Post reply on HN