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

The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

acko.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 500 posts

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#191

Post by BloondAndDoom »

raincole wrote: post #34

> Video games stand out as one market where consumers have pushed back effectively No, it's simply untrue. Players only object against AI art assets. And only when they're painfully obvious. No one cares about how the code is written. If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well. It's specifically worded like this: > content such as artwork,…

One the topic procedural generation; rogue likes are all about it and new generation Diablo like games have definitely similar things, well respected new games like Blue Prince. There has never been such as successful period of time for procedural generation in games like now, and all of these are pre-AI. AI powered procedural generation is wet dream of rogue-like lovers

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#192

Post by qsera »

vladms wrote: post #31

> Whether something is a forgery is innate in the object and the methods used to produce it. It doesn't matter if nobody else ever sees the forged painting, or if it only hangs in a private home. It's a forgery because it's not authentic. On a philosophical level I do not get the discussions about paintings. I love a painting for what it is not for being the first or the only one. An artist that paints something that…

>Me labeling "authentic" it or not should not affect it's artistic value.

The problem with automated imitation generators is that they can produce thousands of painting that imitate Van Gogh, but does not have the same soul.

It is the same reason why these things cannot create genuinely funny jokes. They cannot assess the funnyness of the themselves. They cannot feel, and cannot do the filtering based on emotion.

It is easy to recognize the emptiness of a joke, but not so easy for a painting, or some other form of art.

This is why it will never work for art. But the sad thing is that that will not stop them from being used to create art. Because it just needs to sell.

I would say that for art, at least for most of the movies, music etc, this was already the case. So nothing much to lose.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#193

Post by firmretention »

thendrill wrote: post #105
doodaddy wrote: post #87

There’s a cold reality that we in this profession have yet to accept: nobody cares about our code. Nobody cares whether it’s pretty or clever or elegant. Sometimes, rarely, they care whether it’s maintainable. We are only craftsmen to ourselves and each other. To anyone else we are factory workers producing widgets to sell. Once we accept this then there is little surprise that the factory owners want us using a tool…

Exactly.... I will just copy paste my comment from another thread but still very relevant> Coding isn’t creative, it isn’t sexy, and almost nobody outside this bubble cares Most of the world doesn’t care about “good code.” They care about “does it work, is it fast enough, is it cheap enough, and can we ship it before the competitor does?” Beautiful architecture, perfect tests, elegant abstractions — those things feel…

You didn't write this post. Your LLM did. Are you proud of yourself for copy and pasting "thoughts" that aren't yours?

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#194

Post by qsera »

vladms wrote: post #51
xg15 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An artist that paints something that I can't distinguish from a Van Gogh is a very skillful artist and the painting is very beautiful. There are a lot such artists who can do that after having seen Van Gogh's paintings before . Only Van Gogh (as far as we know) did paint those without having seen anything like it before - in other words, he had a new idea.

So, if we apply to software, should we quote Dijkstra each time we use his graph algorithm? Should we also say "if you can implement Dijkstra's algorithm" it's irrelevant because "you did not have the idea"? It's great to credit people that have an idea first. I fail to see how using an idea is that "bad" or "not worthy", ideas should be spread and used, not locked by the first one that had them (except some small ti…

No, can't apply the same reasoning to software, because the other is art, and hence tied to emotion, taste etc.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#195

Post by anonymous_sorry »

aosnsbbz wrote: post #182
forinti wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment made me think of the Japanese. They have a highly industrialised society, but they also value greatly hand-made products from food and clothes to woodwork and houses. And they also like to emphasise how long it takes for someone to become a master at a given trade.

It was really eye opening seeing they’re able to eat raw eggs and (to maybe a lesser degree of safety) raw chicken because their society requires high standards of cleanliness in food production. We are literal cattle over here in the states. Though, given Amodei and Altman’s behavior (along with the rest of the billionaire class) that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

Eggs in the UK are safe to eat raw (and I presume the EU as well [but please verify before doing so!]).

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#196

Post by wepple »

wolvesechoes wrote: post #155

I am bit tired of such discussions. I don't care if LLMs are good at coding or bad at it (in my experience the answer is "it depends"). I don't care how good are they at anything else. What matters in the end is that this tech is not to empower a common person (although it could). It is not here to make our lives better, more worthwhile, more satisfying (it could do these as well). It is there to reduce our agency, t…

> It is there to reduce our agency, to make it easier to fire us, to put us in even more precarious position

Could be. It could also end up freeing us from every commercial dependency we have. Write your own OS, your own mail app, design your own machinery to farm with.

It’s here, so I don’t know where you’re going with “I’m unhappy this is happening and someone should do something”

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#197

Post by topaz0 »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #185

The framing of an LLM's response as truth vs lie is in itself incorrect. In order to lie, one needs to understand what truth and objective reality are. Even with people, when a flat-earther tells you the earth is flat, they're not lying, they're just wrong. All LLM output is speculation. All speculation, by definition, has some probability of being incorrect. --- We can go even deeper in a philosophical sense. If I m…

They're not saying the LLM is lying; they're saying the human user is lying by using the counterfeit as though it were the genuine artifact.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#198

Post by noemit »

hermannj314 wrote: post #138
noemit wrote: post #106

Many people don't know this, but the Luddites were right. I studied Art History and this particular movement. One of the claims of the Luddites is that quality would go down, because their craft took half a lifetime to master (it was passed down from parent to chile.) I was able to feel wool scarves made in europe from the middle ages. (In museum storage, under the guidance of a curator) They are a fundamentally diff…

only code anyone will be touching in a museum in 800 years will be the good code. I hope they don't talk about what great craftsmen we all were because someone saw an original Fabrice Bellard at the Louvre. Survivor bias plays a role in glorifying the past.

You're right in that we kept the best examples (as coding museums will do in the future) but the best of something is a benchmark. It is striking that modern automation, even hundreds of years later, can't touch what a skilled craftsman could do in the past.

With programming, we documented a lot of it, so it's unlikely to go the way of fine weaving. People will always be able to learn to think and be great programmers.

Maybe if the wool weavers had internet, they could have blogged, made youtube videos, and cataloged their profession so it could last Millenia.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#199

Post by wolvesechoes »

simmerup wrote: post #156
wolvesechoes wrote: post #155

I am bit tired of such discussions. I don't care if LLMs are good at coding or bad at it (in my experience the answer is "it depends"). I don't care how good are they at anything else. What matters in the end is that this tech is not to empower a common person (although it could). It is not here to make our lives better, more worthwhile, more satisfying (it could do these as well). It is there to reduce our agency, t…

I guess you didn't read the article?

Keep guessing

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#200

Post by DonHopkins »

theshrike79 wrote: post #135
wormpilled wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a different category, though. Those backgrounds are actual video recordings of real places, not 3D environments modeled from scratch. It looks 'real' because the background actually exists.

It's still 100% CGI compositing and definitely not all of them are real places or real objects. In that specific 15 year old example they're mostly composited, you're right about that.

I love Ian Hubert's demos of green screening in Blender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxD6H3ri8RI

His Blender Conference talk about photogrammetry / camera projection / projection mapping was fantastic:

World Building in Blender - Ian Hubert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whPWKecazgM

Post reply on HN