161–169 of 169 posts
Social engagement circuitry in your brain is in other parts than dedicated internal conversation logic thought streams. By talking to someone else, you're simply mobilizing a different set of circuitry and thinking approaches. It's like you switched llm models I don't think this is particularly a complicated phenomenon
It started out as an interesting read, until I got to this paragraph: > The value didn't come from what was said at that moment. It came from what had been built across many such moments: a pattern of mutual recognition, a shared context, a baseline of trust that made the later exchange possible. The relationship was the infrastructure. The conversation was where it had been built, one cup of coffee at a time. And th…
Similar: as soon as I see that LLM style I bail out, you can't trust the content. If they can't be arsed to write it, why TF should I be arsed to read it.
In 2017 LLMs weren't powerful enough to generate working code on their own, but my goal was to at least create a chatbot that could help you rubber-duck-debug your way to a solution. Unfortunately the tech wasn't quite strong enough for that, and not enough engineers even knew what rubber-duck-debugging was. RIP Duckly. Trying to train an LLM on two 1080ti's on the StackOverflow corpus in my living room was a vibe th…
perhaps it is time to resurrect Duckly queue Frankenstein music and thunder in background
I'm also already busy building Forgetmenaut and enabling data deletion at scale: forgetmenaut.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This shit gets me irrationally mad. Well, the existence of such content doesn't, but the fact that other people aren't disdained by it (this dogshit has almost 300 upvotes on _HN_ right now) is what gets me.
As someone who doesn't follow the specifics of how LLMs write, how can you be sure it's an LLM? I'm asking this genuinely because I've been using stuff like these separators before LLMS - now someone can just say "ahh dismiss the content they used style X it's LLM, it's dogshit".
You could try asking an LLM to write some prose about whatever you fancy. Maybe two or three different pieces, and ask it to be extra profound. You will probably see that exact sentence structure above a number of times:
> It’s not [X], it’s [Y]. A bit of [A], the [random adjective] of [B], all weaving together to form [C]. A short sentence. Maybe two. A final, culminating closer, gradually transcending into space.
The words are quite interchangeable, but the you will know it when you see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar: as soon as I see that LLM style I bail out, you can't trust the content. If they can't be arsed to write it, why TF should I be arsed to read it.
fwiw Pangram says 100% of the original article was written by AI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harvard's cs50 had a "Rubber Duck debugger" which was an LLM trained on all their educational content with specific guardrails in place to not give any answers. It would chat back with you planting little ideas to help push your understanding just a little bit. I loved it so much, because I was learning programming completely by myself usually after midnight while taking care of a new-born. I had nobody to pair-progr…
That sounds horrible, honestly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A different funny that should be archived here with the above. Assuming you can type well. Take a sentence, put your hands on the keyboard with the intend to type it but dont do it. Some time later dont try to remember the sentence but just put the hands on the keys and let them type. Its really funny seeing the text come out of your keyboard buffer muscle memory. Some japanese guy said he played with the concept and…
You can't think of a sentence and type it later without actively remembering it. You either forgot the sentence by then or you're able to recall it - just typing from memory without actively remembering is just not a thing that is possible. Muscle memory isn't built from thinking one time about what you'd do.
It started out as an interesting read, until I got to this paragraph: > The value didn't come from what was said at that moment. It came from what had been built across many such moments: a pattern of mutual recognition, a shared context, a baseline of trust that made the later exchange possible. The relationship was the infrastructure. The conversation was where it had been built, one cup of coffee at a time. And th…
Similar: as soon as I see that LLM style I bail out, you can't trust the content. If they can't be arsed to write it, why TF should I be arsed to read it.
I always found explaining the problem to one of my cats was a good way of getting to the solution, sadly I had to put the last one down on Monday and now my office feels empty and lifeless. I'd wait a bit and get a kitten but having lost both cats inside a year frankly it hurts too much and they don't live long enough.
Sorry for your loss.
My ex wanted cats, I was never a fan but her and her brother wormed their way into my heart in a way I never expected, I’m not going to get another though, my missus isn’t a huge fan but more than that they don’t live long enough compared to us and it really hurts too much because of that.