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

How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

laurentiugabriel.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 574 posts

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#191

Post by daishi55 »

Terr_ wrote: post #169
daishi55 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Take hallucinations for example. If they are 1 in 100 (actually they are much rarer, but for the sake of argument), then the chances that 2 LLMs or even just 2 runs of the same LLM have the same hallucination is, well, a lot less than 1 in 100.

That rests on a false-assumption that the errors are statistically independent events, and have nothing to do with the shared nature of the judges.

Are there any reproducible hallucinations on any of the currently available OAI/Anthropic models? I’m not aware of any.

And even if they are related - if Opus 4.8 always has a 1:100 chance of a specific hallucination - then running the same model twice does indeed dramatically reduce the odds of an error in the final output.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#192

Post by dbtc »

8bitsout wrote: post #48

I thought LLMs were a great tool for learning new topics - perhaps even complex ones. But overtime, I have had several frustrations with this. First, I get exhausted reading LLM prose. I really don't want to read anything generated by something like Opus 5 at this point. Second, as I dive deeper, I need a way to organize the information in a useful way as I begin to branch out in many different directions. I have tri…

"hey LLM, I'm trying to learn about ___. I already know ___. My favorite authors are ___. Suggest some reading material."

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#193

Post by lowsong »

wxw wrote: post #31

> What you get is a beautiful animation that is 100% accurate and free of hallucinations. I'm not sure I follow how this is actually guaranteed? The fact-checking process mentioned just seems to involve asking AI to review its own work.

Yep, that's impossible. The hard truth is that most people this lost to LLM psychosis cannot understand that fact. It's better to treat it like someone in a cult, arguing the facts isn't going to help if they refuse to accept them.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#194

Post by kurthr »

I am greatly disturbed by the idea that any of the demonstrations involve "complex topics". Whether it was the silicon workflow, LLMs, or EUV, I saw nothing complex. Are these supposed to be freshman undergrad or even high school level explainers? I suppose I didn't see any glaring errors on a quick glance, but definitely lots of details were glossed over.

Perhaps basic special relativity could be done this way, or simple derivatives, but definitely not general relativity or integrals, much less PDEs. I guess I was hoping for a 3B1B type output. Oh well.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#195

Post by kingkawn »

kurthr wrote: post #194

I am greatly disturbed by the idea that any of the demonstrations involve "complex topics". Whether it was the silicon workflow, LLMs, or EUV, I saw nothing complex. Are these supposed to be freshman undergrad or even high school level explainers? I suppose I didn't see any glaring errors on a quick glance, but definitely lots of details were glossed over. Perhaps basic special relativity could be done this way, or s…

Rejoice for your chance to brag

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#196

Post by cromka »

duncangh wrote: post #152
Gander5739 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the output can't be trusted, and you use another llm whose output can't be trusted to check the untrusted output of the first llm, then you're back where you started.

Yeah this seems to me similar to how the mortgage backed security risk concentration occurred leading up to the global financial crisis. Whereby the risk from exposure to low grade / risky single mortgages was eliminated via diversification but the diversification was simply packaging all of the risky MBS’s together and in no way diversified or de-risked the entire portfolio

I don't see it. To me it's like having e.g. 3 drunk PhDs arguing between each other to settle on truthful answers to questions.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#197

Post by unclebucknasty »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #181
copperx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much better to feed the book to the LLM and ask questions as you read along, instead of asking the LLM to basically write a custom book for you from scratch.

Even with the latest models today, the hallucination rate is absurdly high on anything deeper than surface level knowledge or something that can be directly scraped from reddit. And you notice when it's a topic you know well or something like software where you can immediately tell the options it's giving you don't exist on the page. Leading to the amusing statement "LLMs are bad at what I do but great at everything…

I've (elsewhere) written about this diminishing return effect on LLM utility in relation to increasing expertise.

The question: what's the net positive gain of turning people who know nothing in a given field into sub-novices, while weighing actual experts down with work slop and marginal returns?

And I wonder what the true cost is of arming so many novices with that level of dangerous knowledge.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#198

Post by [deleted] »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #181
copperx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much better to feed the book to the LLM and ask questions as you read along, instead of asking the LLM to basically write a custom book for you from scratch.

Even with the latest models today, the hallucination rate is absurdly high on anything deeper than surface level knowledge or something that can be directly scraped from reddit. And you notice when it's a topic you know well or something like software where you can immediately tell the options it's giving you don't exist on the page. Leading to the amusing statement "LLMs are bad at what I do but great at everything…

[deleted]

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#199

Post by Terr_ »

daishi55 wrote: post #191
Terr_ wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rests on a false-assumption that the errors are statistically independent events, and have nothing to do with the shared nature of the judges.

Are there any reproducible hallucinations on any of the currently available OAI/Anthropic models? I’m not aware of any. And even if they are related - if Opus 4.8 always has a 1:100 chance of a specific hallucination - then running the same model twice does indeed dramatically reduce the odds of an error in the final output.

If simply running things thrice-over was enough to stop "hallucinations" (and not incur other problems) we wouldn't be here talking about it today, it'd have been "solved" months or years ago.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#200

Post by voidhorse »

copperx wrote: post #53
8bitsout wrote: post #48

I thought LLMs were a great tool for learning new topics - perhaps even complex ones. But overtime, I have had several frustrations with this. First, I get exhausted reading LLM prose. I really don't want to read anything generated by something like Opus 5 at this point. Second, as I dive deeper, I need a way to organize the information in a useful way as I begin to branch out in many different directions. I have tri…

It's much better to feed the book to the LLM and ask questions as you read along, instead of asking the LLM to basically write a custom book for you from scratch.

This. This is exactly how I use them and I have had no issues so far. I read the book myself, then I point the LLM at it to ask questions about notions I might be struggling with.
Post reply on HN