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

471–480 of 533 posts

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#471

Post by laserDinosaur »

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…

I once heard on a podcast about comics that an artist ran into someone who couldn't read comics. Not that they didn't like them, but they claimed that they just didn't understand how they worked. When the artist explained 'well each panel shows an illustration of the events in the story', the other person was confused - "each panel is connected to the previous?" they asked. They just couldn't wrap their head around the fact that each of the panels was connected in some way - their brain just refused to interperate them as anything other than 4 separate completely unrelated panels.

When I see AI animated videos, that's how my brain feels. It's this strange brain-fog that I just cannot connect together the sequences of images being shown into some sort of chain of events. My brain just refuses to see them as anything other than a disconnected series of 2-3 second videos, even if the same character(ish) appears in them all. It's very strange.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#472

Post by ImHereToVote »

zarzavat wrote: post #21

It may be nostalgia but I feel like we reached peak humanness with GPT-4o and since then it's been getting more and more alien. Particularly Fable.

I feel the hyperscalers are all trying to make communicating about code more cumbersome so that their models will be have to be used without any human input. Chinese models talk more naturally. Composer 2.5 is really good for talking about the code.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#473

Post by 3dddad »

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…

How can human thinking be statistical when it is entirely based on ones lived experiences?

When people pretend to know what they are talking about - sure - but even that is not probabilistic - that is the person babbling together mush from their lived experiences.

Statistics has nothing to do with it - these are abstractions humans have invented to try and look at our surroundings objectively.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#474

Post by akoboldfrying »

jaccola wrote: post #405
akoboldfrying wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Low n Are you serious? From the paper: > We recruited 126 participants from the UCSD psychology undergraduate subject pool and 158 participants from Prolific (Prolific, 2025). Each human participated in 8 rounds. > time bound The time bound of 5 minutes was suggested by Turing himself in his original paper. > not reproduced It was reproduced across two populations within the paper . > And look at their example conv…

A paper can’t reproduce its self. And he didn’t formulate the test with a 5 minute bound he just predicted that by the year 2000 that within 5 minutes an average interrogator would have a sub 70% chance of guessing correctly. And it’s all irrelevant. If one human on earth can consistently get it right then it hasn’t been passed since clearly that human can somehow determine between them (whereas no one would ever be…

> And he didn’t formulate the test with a 5 minute bound he just predicted that by the year 2000 that within 5 minutes an average interrogator would have a sub 70% chance of guessing correctly.

Right, the test duration was left unspecified. This means any duration is acceptable. Including, for example, the only duration actually mentioned by Turing himself in his paper. Or do you have a more authoritative source on which durations are acceptable?

> If one human on earth can consistently get it right then it hasn’t been passed

Says who? Not Turing. Probably he didn't say that because it would make the test both impractical and overly conservative.

> The fact these researchers have to keep adding bounds

What "bounds"?

The speed of the goalposts here is just amazing.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#475

Post by 3dddad »

pclowes wrote: post #442
Gareth321 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Isn't this how human brains work? We're just large probabilistic neural inference machines. A network of neural weights guided by past training. To be honest I think the debate about what "sentience" is is inconsequential n…

We have actually little idea how human brains work. Every age thinks they know how they work, and then every subsequent age laughs at the previous age’s rudimentary understanding. We gave a Nobel prize to the psychiatrist for inventing a method to remove the frontal lobes of a brain through the nose in 1949. Lobotomies were performed through the 70s. We are likely doing similar if not subtler but worse things today (…

Yes and in actuality we dont need to know how humans brain's work to make progress.

Just like how airplanes don't flap their wings.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#476

Post by 3dddad »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #219
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. I don't see any fundamental difference in functionality between human intellectual contributions vs performant ML ones (LLM or otherwise). W…

" prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier."

So?

Mathematics is literally intangible scaffolding.

If you dont know / don't believe 5+5 = 10

You cannot solve x+5 = 10

This is all make-believe stuff and nature by itself doesn't care of its existence.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#478

Post by Frieren »

dsign wrote: post #52

I don't like AI-generated text at work, at all. It feels lifeless and unfocused. But what I hate the most is that it is objectively better than what I had before. No typos, clear structure, and, regrettably, the verbosity and autistic obsession with detail of the LLM is more actionable and useful than the human guy who wrote lists of commands and URLs as documentation, without explaining anything. Or the colleague wh…

> ... and autistic obsession with detail ...

Why do people glorify autism? I have seen this mostly on CEOs that want workers that are hyper-focused, intelligent and do not complain. The ideal employee from which extract value and a minimum cost.

I have worked with autistic people (diagnosed ones). And it is a struggle. One of them could be the nicest most reasonable person one minute and then get a trigger and become obtuse and irrational while making the rest of the team suffer thru all kinds of complains. Meetings would need to be adjourned and time was lost.

> The cynic in me bemoans that we brought this upon ourselves, in more than one way.

I enjoy working with other employees and people need human contact to become fully self-actualized. Isolating people to maximize productivity misses the point and brings no more productivity and just avoids fixing any real existing problems.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#479

Post by sensanaty »

tlkn_bot_praxis wrote: post #258

I've been stuck in loop all week where a coworker asked me to review some methodology documents that are clearly generated by Claude (which is fine in this case) but every time I sit down my brain can't get through 2 sentences without feeling like I'm reading nothing. It actually feels like the content, which isn't empty, has no meaning. So I go on to another assignment and come back later and the same thing happens.…

I had this the other day with a colleague who is Chinese. Their command of English isn't the greatest, but I never really had an issue understanding them before (in fact, despite their poor English it has literally never been an issue!), but now I just get these walls of text in typical LLM English that have become absurdly difficult to parse. It's like the uncanny valley of text, if you look at it as a whole it seems like it's a proper sentence. The words are all real words, they even make sense in the order the AI has put them in, but as a collective it's like my brain cannot connect more than a sentence or two together.

I thought it was maybe me just becoming lazier with reading considering how much AI-generated text I'm subjected to against my will, but I picked up Blood Meridian the other day and have unironically had less trouble parsing that novel than I have the majority of LLM-authored text I've seen.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#480

Post by skydhash »

ndriscoll wrote: post #455
tripzilch wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating a discussion about current LLM capabilities with your fantasies about nonexistent future AI. LLMs act nothing like this, and the small example you're giving is only a small part of the things that LLMs can't do.

Not that I'm a professional mathematician, but I'm not seeing why people think definitions are somehow a blocker. LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "spine" of a program (basically an intelligible theory), and they do it really well. Like when we had these recent counterexamples to various conjecture…

> LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "spine" of a program (basically an intelligible theory), and they do it really well.

Is it a "standard" software? Something where the patterns exists in several other software? Try with something that is novel, or is in a limited set. You will find that it will copy heavily from what exists already, going so far as lifting whole functions from another project.

Post reply on HN