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

I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#61

Post by hardbass »

encyclopedism wrote: post #39
vova_hn2 wrote: post #10

I'm very sorry to say it, but even reading LLM-slop is less tiresome, then reading yet another anti-AI slop article. It's a pretty low bar. I could find 10 anti-AI posts on HN and they all will contain points from a very narrow pool of anti-AI takes. I mean, how many more times do you need to repeat them? > stochastic algorithms trained to produce tons of "average," non-human content As we can see, humans are also qu…

> I mean, how many more times do you need to repeat them? Exactly! It's not as if humans are special (though LLM's certainly are). Humans, they've been the same for thousands of years, same old stories (there's like only 7 archetypal stories they've ever come up with). Same old poems, love this, romance that blah blah blah! We certainly don't need yet another anti-AI article, same as all the others. Though as it's wr…

I knew a lot of people have various blind spots, but I had never expected such a massive wave of dualist thinking in practitioners of an engineering/science field.

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#62

Post by AndrewDucker »

hardbass wrote: post #60
AndrewDucker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not just a stochastic parrot. Your speech is not just "next likely word", but a product of your internal model of the world.

I would first like to ask, are you religious? Do you believe in souls? If the answer to both is "No", then I'd like to discuss further.

The answer to both is "No".

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#63

Post by augment_me »

thefz wrote: post #54
augment_me wrote: post #12

You won't be able to choose at some point, and you probably already read plenty of AI generated stuff, it's a survivorship bias. I have a SKILL that emulates how my supervisor prefers his answers and papers, he used to get triggered by generated stuff, but now it just writes in a style he likes which I got from a bunch of his papers and everything goes smoother. If you are bottlenecking someone they will just do the…

> have a SKILL that emulates how my supervisor prefers his answers and papers, he used to get triggered by generated stuff, but now it just writes in a style he likes So your direct superior asked you not to do something and you still worked your way around his preference while feeling cool about of it? Just to save the time of typing?

Clearly the LLM was more than capable to satisfy him, and his conviction was based on pure bias against the technology rather than being grounded in reality.

The only result is that we both have more time. If he didn't like slop, he would catch the new writing as well and I would have to make an effort there, but clearly he is just molded by bias.

Its like people who claim branded stuff is better when it's the same, or that expensive wine/coffee is better when it's about how you serve it. Cognitive bias and stubbornness.

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#64

Post by hardbass »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #62
hardbass wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would first like to ask, are you religious? Do you believe in souls? If the answer to both is "No", then I'd like to discuss further.

The answer to both is "No".

Ok, then let us discuss what you define stochastic parrot as.

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#65

Post by AndrewDucker »

hardbass wrote: post #64
AndrewDucker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to both is "No".

Ok, then let us discuss what you define stochastic parrot as.

Happy to go with the first paragraph from the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_parrot

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#66

Post by [deleted] »

aogaili wrote: post #36
aogaili wrote: post #32

Do those people feel important by objecting on those tools? Like they are above others?

I'm getting downvoted while the article itself got flagged. I still don't understand given the advancement in those models (both closed and open source) one could have such a reductionist view on them. And my only guess is that they derive the feeling of importance through the act of rebellion. Almost like a teenage rebelling against others. But it doesn't take much to see this tech is here to stay.

[deleted]

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#67

Post by hardbass »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #65
hardbass wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, then let us discuss what you define stochastic parrot as.

Happy to go with the first paragraph from the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_parrot

Suppose a "parrot" factors a product of two 2048 bit primes? Is it still an entity without understanding of the processes considering the search space size?

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#68

Post by AndrewDucker »

hardbass wrote: post #67
AndrewDucker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to go with the first paragraph from the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_parrot

Suppose a "parrot" factors a product of two 2048 bit primes? Is it still an entity without understanding of the processes considering the search space size?

Does it have an internal model of what a prime is? If so then it's not parroting. If it doesn't then it is. The whole point is that either they have internal models of the concepts, from experience of those things, or they don't, and are purely working from ungrounded symbols which have no connection to the actual things they're referencing.

So, examples of "Look, it did this!" mean nothing to me. What matters is their internal systems.

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#69

Post by FranklinMaillot »

MrVandemar wrote: post #56
FranklinMaillot wrote: post #23

The stance is defensible but the article reads like it was written in 2023. Still using the term 'stochastic parrot', in 2026, when century-old mathematical problems are being proven by LLMs almost on a weekly basis doesn't make sense.

The solving of the mathematics problems is largely a marketing stunt. It's a great headline though. It was also deeply uneconomic, and didn't change the world, or materially advance our understanding. Mostly it's demoralised the mathematicians already working to solve those problems. They're not going to say 'That's great, I can now devote my energies to another problem', they're more likely to look at 10 years of po…

I suppose we don't have the same definition of 'stochastic parrot'.

Re: I Don't Want to Interact with Stochastic Parrots

#70

Post by hardbass »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #68
hardbass wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose a "parrot" factors a product of two 2048 bit primes? Is it still an entity without understanding of the processes considering the search space size?

Does it have an internal model of what a prime is? If so then it's not parroting. If it doesn't then it is. The whole point is that either they have internal models of the concepts, from experience of those things, or they don't, and are purely working from ungrounded symbols which have no connection to the actual things they're referencing. So, examples of "Look, it did this!" mean nothing to me. What matters is the…

What do you think "experience is"? The human brain and body stores experience, like anything else as physical data in itself. So why do you think an LLM can't have experiential knowledge if it is trained to or somehow naturally gains it during training?
Post reply on HN