Live data from Hacker News

LLM=True

blog.codemine.be

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: LLM=True

#141
post #136
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have the ability to ignore and generally not remember things after a short scan, prioritize what's actually important etc. But to an LLM a token is a token. There's attempts at effectively doing something similar with analysis passes of the context - kinda what things like auto-compaction is doing - but I'm sure anyone who has used the current generation of those tools will tell you they're very much imperfect…

Isn’t the purpose of self attention exactly to recognize the relevance of some tokens over others?

That may help with tokens being "ignored" while still being in the context window, but not context window size costs and limitations in the first place.

Re: LLM=True

#142
post #13

On a lot of linux distros there is the `moreutils` package, which contains a command called `chronic`. Originally intended to be used in crontabs, it executes a command and only outputs its output if it fails. I think this could find another use case here.

This is great, I like this. Wrote a 'chronic-file' variant that just dumps everything into a tmpfile and outputs the filepath for the agent in case of error and otherwise nothing

Re: LLM=True

#143
post #54

> Then a brick hits you in the face when it dawns on you that all of our tools are dumping crazy amounts of non-relevant context into stdout thereby polluting your context windows. I've found that letting the agent write its own optimized script for dealing with some things can really help with this. Claude is now forbidden from using `gradlew` directly, and can only use a helper script we made. It clears, recompiles…

> Claude is now forbidden from using `gradlew` directly, and can only use a helper script we made. It clears, recompiles, publishes locally, tests, ... all with a few extra flags. And when a test fails, the stack trace is printed. I think my question at this point is what about this is specific to LLMs. Humans should not be forced to wade through reams of garbage output either.

In my experience, it's the old time-invested vs time-saved trade off. If you're not looking at these reams of output often enough, the incentive to figure out all the flags and configs for verbosity to write these script is lower: https://xkcd.com/1205/

And because these issues are often sporadic, doing all this would be an unwanted sidequest, so humans grit their teeth and wade through the garbage manually each time.

With LLMs, the cost is effectively 0 compared to a human, so it doesn't matter. Have them write the script. In fact, because it benefits the LLM by reducing context pollution, which increases their accuracy, such measures should be actively identified and put in place.

Re: LLM=True

#144
post #136
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have the ability to ignore and generally not remember things after a short scan, prioritize what's actually important etc. But to an LLM a token is a token. There's attempts at effectively doing something similar with analysis passes of the context - kinda what things like auto-compaction is doing - but I'm sure anyone who has used the current generation of those tools will tell you they're very much imperfect…

Isn’t the purpose of self attention exactly to recognize the relevance of some tokens over others?

[dead]

Re: LLM=True

#145
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly law professor Rob Anderson joked on X that llm hallucinated cases are good law: https://x.com/ProfRobAnderson/status/2019078989348774129 > Indeed hallucinated cases are "better law." Drawing on Ronald Dworkin's theory of law as integrity, which posits that ideal legal decisions must "fit" existing precedents while advancing principled justice, this article argues that these hallucinations represent emergent…

Seems naive. You can get an LLM to agree with almost anything if you say the right things to it, and it will hallucinate citations to back you up without skipping a beat. You can probably get it to hallucinate case law to legalize murder on Mondays.

You’re talking about manipulated/malicious/intentfully steered hallucination but the parent is referring to trained emergent hallucination (even if sycophantic). These are two different things and both can occur, but the latter is what’s being tongue-in-cheek referred to by the professor.

Re: LLM=True

#147
This is why I built claude-warden: https://github.com/johnzfitch/claude-warden

I think it’s much simpler & easier to just build this into agents than trying to modify every tool ever created to be less verbose. Just guard agents from it user-side. Let users control what they want to see and pass into context.

Re: LLM=True

#148
This is exactly right. We hit the same wall. Our solution was to re-imagine Unix at https://linuxtoaster.com, and either pipe through jq etc or just start rewriting tools that do that. A good tool shouldn't be verbose out of laziness, it should be conscious of the information that might be needed by the next step in the pipeline. If deeper information is needed, the user should ask for that, with a command line flag.

Re: LLM=True

#149
post #54

> Then a brick hits you in the face when it dawns on you that all of our tools are dumping crazy amounts of non-relevant context into stdout thereby polluting your context windows. I've found that letting the agent write its own optimized script for dealing with some things can really help with this. Claude is now forbidden from using `gradlew` directly, and can only use a helper script we made. It clears, recompiles…

> Claude is now forbidden from using `gradlew` directly, and can only use a helper script we made. It clears, recompiles, publishes locally, tests, ... all with a few extra flags. And when a test fails, the stack trace is printed. I think my question at this point is what about this is specific to LLMs. Humans should not be forced to wade through reams of garbage output either.

> I think my question at this point is what about this is specific to LLMs. Humans should not be forced to wade through reams of garbage output either.

Beware I'm a complete AI layman. All this is from background reading of popular articles. It may well be wrong. It's definitely out of date.

It has to do with how the attention heads work. The attention heads (the idea originated from the "Attention is all you need" paper, arguably the single most important AI paper to date), direct the LLM to work on the most relevant parts of the conversation. If you want a human analogue, it's your attention heads that are tacking the interesting points in a conversation.

The original attention heads output a relevance score for every pair of words in the context window. Thus in "Time flies like an arrow", it's the attention heads that spot the word "Time" is very relevant to "arrow", but not "flies". The implication of this is an attention head does O(N*N) work. It does not scale well to large context windows.

Nonetheless, you see claims of "large" context windows the LLMs marketing. (Large is in quotes, because even a 1M context window begins to feel very cramped in a write / test / fix loop.) But a 1M context-window would require a attention head requiring a 1 trillion element matrix. That isn't feasible. The industry even has a name for the size of the window they give in their marketing: the Effective Context Window. Internally they have another metric that measures the real amount of compute they throw at attention: the Physical Context Window. The bridge between the two is some proprietary magic that discards tokens in the context window that are likely to be irrelevant. In my experience, that bridge is pretty good at doing that, where "pretty good" is up to human standards.

But eventually (actually quickly in my experience), you fill up even the marketed size of the context window because it is remembering every word said, in the order they were said. If it reads code it's written to debug it, it appears twice in the context window. All compiler and test output also ends up there. Once the context window fills up they take drastic action, because it like letting malloc fail. Even reporting a malloc failure is hard because it usually needs more malloc to do the reporting. Anthropic calls it compacting. It throws away 90% of your tokens. It turns your helpful LLM into a goldfish with dementia. It is nowhere near as good as human is at remembering what happened. Not even close.

Re: LLM=True

#150
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet when my $100 CC Pro renewed last month my instinctive thought was wow is that all?

That can be read in two ways: 1) It's only $100, well worth the money. 2) Surprisingly little value was provide for all that money.

I'm not sure how you'd read it the second way.
Post reply on HN