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

LLMs understand nullability

dmodel.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#121

Post by [deleted] »

kubav027 wrote: post #104
uh_uh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really have a clue what they are and aren't capable of. Prior to the LLM-boom, many people – and I include myself in this – thought it'd be impossible to get to the level of capability we have now purely from statistical methods and here we are. If you have a strong theory that proves some bounds on LLM-capability, then please put it forward. In the absence of that, your sceptical attitude is just as sus as…

LLM also have no idea what it is capable of. This feels like difference to humans. Having some understanding of the problem also means knowing or "feeling" the limits of that understanding.

[deleted]

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#122

Post by uh_uh »

kubav027 wrote: post #104
uh_uh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really have a clue what they are and aren't capable of. Prior to the LLM-boom, many people – and I include myself in this – thought it'd be impossible to get to the level of capability we have now purely from statistical methods and here we are. If you have a strong theory that proves some bounds on LLM-capability, then please put it forward. In the absence of that, your sceptical attitude is just as sus as…

LLM also have no idea what it is capable of. This feels like difference to humans. Having some understanding of the problem also means knowing or "feeling" the limits of that understanding.

1. Many humans don't have an idea of the limits of their competence. It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect.

2. LLMs regularly tell me if what I'm asking for is possible or not. I'm not saying they're always correct, but they seem to have at least some sense of what's in the realm of possibility.

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#123

Post by uh_uh »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #116
shafyy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countering the argument that LLMs are just gloriefied probability machines and do not undertand or think with "how do you know humans are not the same" has been the biggest achievement of AI hypemen (and yes, it's mostly men). Of course, now you can say "how do you know that our brains are not just efficient computers that run LLMs", but I feel like the onus of proof lies on the makers of this claim, not on the other…

I’ve come to realize AI works as well as it does because it was trained extensively on the same kinds of things people normally ask. So, it already has the benefit of vast amounts of human responses. Of course, ask it a PhD level question and it will confidently hallucinate more than Beavis & Butthead. It really is a damn glorified autocomplete, unfortunately very useful as a search engine replacement.

The LLM is a glorified autocomplete in as much as you are a glorified replicator. Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge.

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#124

Post by LordDragonfang »

cess11 wrote: post #120
LordDragonfang wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying no while presenting nothing to contradict what GP said. Judging someone's external "involuntary cues" is not interrogating their internal state. It is, as you said, judging their response (a synonym for "answer") - and that judgment is also highly imperfect. (It's worth noting that focusing so much on the someone's body language and tone that you ignore the actual words they said is a communication iss…

Are you sure? "Nobody interrogates each other's internal states when judging whether someone understands a topic. All we can judge it based on are the words they produce or the actions they take in response to a situation." I'm fairly sure I wrote something that contradicts these two sentences. You can commonly figure out whether people are leaking information about how they feel and what emotional and cognitive stat…

I don't know how to further explain that a person's external facial and bodily responses are literally their external state and not their internal state. Your interpretation of those is not actual knowledge of their internal state. To be even more plain, it's a guess based on external state. I know this is something that allistic people have trouble understanding, though.

You're mistaking the shadow on the cave wall for the thing itself. Inference is not the same as observation.

For the same reason that polygraphs are not lie detectors, the body language that you're convinced is "leaking" is not actually internal state.

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#125

Post by shafyy »

uh_uh wrote: post #123
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve come to realize AI works as well as it does because it was trained extensively on the same kinds of things people normally ask. So, it already has the benefit of vast amounts of human responses. Of course, ask it a PhD level question and it will confidently hallucinate more than Beavis & Butthead. It really is a damn glorified autocomplete, unfortunately very useful as a search engine replacement.

The LLM is a glorified autocomplete in as much as you are a glorified replicator. Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge.

> Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge.

No, but we know how it works and it is just a stochastic parrot. There is no magic in there.

What is more suprising to me that humans are so predictable that a glorified autocomplete works this well. Then again, it's not that suprising....

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#126

Post by shafyy »

mlinhares wrote: post #109
shafyy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countering the argument that LLMs are just gloriefied probability machines and do not undertand or think with "how do you know humans are not the same" has been the biggest achievement of AI hypemen (and yes, it's mostly men). Of course, now you can say "how do you know that our brains are not just efficient computers that run LLMs", but I feel like the onus of proof lies on the makers of this claim, not on the other…

BuT iT CoUlD Be, cAn YoU PrOvE ThAT IT is NOt? I'm having a great experience using Cursor, but i don't feel like trying to overhype it, it just makes me tired to see all this hype. Its a great tool, makes me more productive, nothing beyond that.

That's great for you. I'm not diminishing your experience or taking it away. I think we agree on the hype.

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#127

Post by cess11 »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #124
cess11 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? "Nobody interrogates each other's internal states when judging whether someone understands a topic. All we can judge it based on are the words they produce or the actions they take in response to a situation." I'm fairly sure I wrote something that contradicts these two sentences. You can commonly figure out whether people are leaking information about how they feel and what emotional and cognitive stat…

I don't know how to further explain that a person's external facial and bodily responses are literally their external state and not their internal state. Your interpretation of those is not actual knowledge of their internal state. To be even more plain, it's a guess based on external state . I know this is something that allistic people have trouble understanding, though. You're mistaking the shadow on the cave wall…

I think most people have experience with situations where someone else has tried to hide their true feelings and still been able to figure it out due to involuntary cues. If you were to ever look at some popular television shows you'll find that this is a common basis for both drama and comedy and widely understood by people all over the world.

It might come as a surprise, but everything you've ever experienced is just shadows on the cave wall that is your cerebral cortex. You've never ever been outside of that cave and have always been at the mercy of a mammal brain preparing and projecting those shadows for you.

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#128

Post by uh_uh »

shafyy wrote: post #125
uh_uh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LLM is a glorified autocomplete in as much as you are a glorified replicator. Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge.

> Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge. No, but we know how it works and it is just a stochastic parrot. There is no magic in there. What is more suprising to me that humans are so predictable that a glorified autocomplete works this well. Then again, it's not that suprising....

Sorry but this is nonsense. Do you have a theory about when certain LLM capabilities emerge? AFAIK we don't have a good theory about when and why they do emerge.

But even if knew how something works (which in present case we don't), shouldn't diminish our opinion of it. Will you have a lesser opinion of human intelligence, once we figure out how it works?

Re: LLMs understand nullability

#130

Post by sfn42 »

uh_uh wrote: post #128
shafyy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, it was trained on autocomplete but that doesn't say much about what capabilities might emerge. No, but we know how it works and it is just a stochastic parrot. There is no magic in there. What is more suprising to me that humans are so predictable that a glorified autocomplete works this well. Then again, it's not that suprising....

Sorry but this is nonsense. Do you have a theory about when certain LLM capabilities emerge? AFAIK we don't have a good theory about when and why they do emerge. But even if knew how something works (which in present case we don't), shouldn't diminish our opinion of it. Will you have a lesser opinion of human intelligence, once we figure out how it works?

I'm sure at any given point there's hundreds of this exact discussion occurring in various threads on HN.

LLMs are cool, a lot of people find them useful. Hype bros are full of crap and there's no point arguing with them because it's always a pointless discussion. With crypto and nfts it's future predictions which are just inherently impossible to reason about, with ai it's partially that, and partially the whole "do they have human properties" thing which is equally impossible to reason about.

It gets discussed to death every single day.

Post reply on HN