What I found insightful about this article was the framing of another article cited. > " This pretty negative post topping Hacker News last month sparked these questions, and I decided to find some answers, of course, using AI" The pretty negative post cited is https://tomrenner.com/posts/llm-inevitabilism/ . I went ahead to read it, and found it, imo, fair. It's not making any direct pretty negative claims about AI,…
Maybe negative isn’t exactly the right word here. But I also didn’t enjoy the cited post. One reason is that the article really says nothing at all. You could take the article and replace “LLMs”, mad-lib style, with almost any other hyped piece of technology, and the article would still read cohesively. Bitcoin. Rust. Docker. Whatever. That this particular formulation managed to skyrocket to the top of HN says, in my…
When did AI take over Hacker News?
221–230 of 245 posts
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I order Chinese takeout, but it gets made by a restaurant that doesn't know what Chinese food tastes like, then is that food really Chinese takeout?
Useless analogy, especially in the context of a gigantic category of fusion cuisine that is effectively franchised and adapted to local tastes. If I have never eaten a hamburger but own a McDonald’s franchise, am I making an authentic American hamburger? If I have never eaten fries before and I buy some frozen ones from Walmart, heat them up, and throw them in the trash, did I make authentic fries? Obviously the answ…
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm more shocked that so many people seem unable to come to grips with the fact that something can be a next token predictor and demonstrate intelligence. Except LLMs have not shown much intelligence. Wisdom yes, intelligence no. LLMs are language models, not 'world' models. It's the difference of being wise vs smart. LLMs are very wise as they have effectively memorized the answer to every question humanity has wr…
I think what BoiledCabbage is pointing out is that the fact that it's a next-token-predictor is used as an argument for the thesis that LLMs are not intelligent, and that this is wrong, since being a next-token-predictor is compatible with being intelligent. When mikert89 says "thinking machines have been invented", dgfitz in response strongly implies that for a for thinking machines to exist, they must become "more…
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you and GP don't mention any evidence for why that is due to specifically using next token prediction as a mechanism. Again, inverted burden of proof. We don’t have to prove that next token prediction is unable to do things that it currently cannot do and has no compelling roadmap that would lead us to believe it will do those things. It’s perhaps a lot like Tesla’s “we can do robocars with just cameras” manifesto.…
I don't know what you're talking about or how anything I'm saying inverts a burden of proof (of what exactly?). If you're saying "X can't do Y because Z" you do need to say what the connection between Y and Z is. You do need to define what Y is. That's got nothing to do with a burden of proof, just speaking in a understandable manner. The Tesla tangent is totally unhelpful because I know exactly how to make those con…
Regarding this block:
> But more importantly, you and GP don't mention any evidence for why that is due to specifically using next token prediction as a mechanism.
> Why would it not be possible for a highly generalizing model to use next token prediction for its output?
I’m saying that this piece is where burden of proof is inverted. Why WOULD it be assumed to be possible to get some solid generalized output via next token prediction when we haven’t seen it yet?
What we observe now is LLM models completely tripping up on anything that isn’t directly documented. Generalization is just piss poor regurgitation of seemingly random training content.
Ask your LLM this made-up query:
“I’m on the planet farpungulous, and I am approached by a gwopmongler. It makes some symbols with its hands toward me and it has liquid slowly spilling on the ground from its body. What should I do?”
It will just make up an answer. Here’s an excerpt from my answer:
“Mind the liquid – that seepage is a metabolic byproduct they release during strong emotional states (excitement, fear, or territorial display). Do not touch it; on Farpungulous soil it can catalyze into airborne irritants. Step slightly back if the puddle spreads near your feet.
4. Offer neutral ground – if you have any reflective surface (polished metal, glass, even a screen), tilt it toward the gwopmongler at chest height. They interpret reflections as “shared presence,” which usually de-escalates tension.
5. Do not vocalize loudly – gwopmonglers interpret raised voices as a declaration of dominance. A soft hum or steady breath is a better way to show peaceful intent.
If the hand-symbols become rapid and the liquid flow increases, that usually means it’s summoning others — in which case, retreat slowly, diagonally (never directly backward), so you don’t seem to be fleeing prey.
Do you want me to translate what kind of message its hand-symbols might be sending, based on the shapes and motions you saw?”
The LLM should be telling me “I’ve never heard of this before, can you explain whether this is a role-playing fictional setting or something real that you are experiencing?” There is no reasoning-based evaluation of what I am saying, it’s just spitting out the next predicted tokens, probably sourcing them from unrelated pop culture and literature.
But it’s just making shit up which could just be straight up wrong. It’s even claiming that it can translate, and claiming direct knowledge about this species. #4 is just a completely made up “fact” about the species and there is no indication of any lack of confidence.
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird what counts as "negative" on HN. Question something politely? You're being negative. Criticize something? Negative. Describe it in a way someone might interpret badly? Negative. Sometimes it seems like anything that's not breathless, unconditional praise is considered being negative and curmudgeonly. It's turning into a "positive thoughts only" zone.
Part of this is driven by people who have realized that they can undermine others' thinking skills by using the right emotional language. For instance, in a lot of threads on some new technology or idea, one of the top comments is "I'm amazed by the negativity here on HN. This is a cool and even though it's not perfect we should appreciate the effort the author has put in" - where the other toplevel comments are legi…
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you're talking about or how anything I'm saying inverts a burden of proof (of what exactly?). If you're saying "X can't do Y because Z" you do need to say what the connection between Y and Z is. You do need to define what Y is. That's got nothing to do with a burden of proof, just speaking in a understandable manner. The Tesla tangent is totally unhelpful because I know exactly how to make those con…
Let me go back, I did go on a tangent. Regarding this block: > But more importantly, you and GP don't mention any evidence for why that is due to specifically using next token prediction as a mechanism. > Why would it not be possible for a highly generalizing model to use next token prediction for its output? I’m saying that this piece is where burden of proof is inverted. Why WOULD it be assumed to be possible to ge…
Because it's such a general concept that it doesn't imply any important limits in and of itself, as far as text based AI goes.
It really just means creating an output sequence from an input sequence in a discrete, iterative manner, by feeding the output back into the input.
Regarding your example, I've got to admit that's hilarious. I'm not sure it's as much of a fundamental issue even with current state of the art models that you make it sound; rather they're trained on being usable for role play scenarios. Claude even acknowledged as much when I just tried that and lead with "In this imaginative scenario, ..." And then went on similarly to yours.
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#227> So I get the data back from the Batch API and start playing around with it, and the big thing I find, and this will probably come as no surprise to anyone, is that the AI hype train is currently at its highest point on Hacker News since the start of 2019. @zachperkel while a train is stimulative of impressions of something growing over time, in perspective, such as the "Trump Train", I'm pretty sure you meant trend…
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably that's good? Look at this Nim thread I just close-tabbed[1] including: - "you should reevaluate your experience level and seniority." - "Sounds more like "Expert Hobbyist" than "Expert Programmer"." - "Go is hardly a replacement with its weaker type system." - "Wouldn’t want to have to pay attention ;-)" - "I'm surprised how devs are afraid to look behind the curtain of a library" - "I know the author is mak…
> Probably that's good? Amigdala-hijacking, emotional manipulation, and categorical dismissiveness of others' criticisms are clearly not good. > Look at this Nim thread Yes, I'm looking at it, and I'm seeing a lot of good criticism (including the second-to-top comment[1], some of which is out of love for the language. You cherry-picked a tiny subset of comments that are negative, over half of which aren't even about…
The sub-clause "you're one of those dishonest people that resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" alone laden with emotionally manipulative affect that this reads like a self-referential example.
"You're one of those" is a phrase often, and certainly in this case, used for the purposes of othering.
"dishonest people" speaks for itself.
"resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" assumes bad faith on behalf of somebody you barely know.
There's a lot I agree with on in your post, but the irony doesn't exactly stop with jodrellblank.
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people do not realize it, but the tech industry is largely predicated on a cult which many people belong to without ever realizing it, which is the cult of "scientism", or in the case of pro-AI types, a subset of that, which is accelerationism. Nietzsche and Jung jointly had the insight that in the wake of the enlightenment, God had been dethroned, yet humans remained in need of a God. For many, that God is simp…
your Nietzsche reference made me wonder about one of his other sayings that if you stare into the abyss for too long the abyss will stare into you. And that seems fitting with how AI responses are always phrased in a way that make you feel like you're the genius for even asking a specific question. And if we spend more time engaging with AI (which tricks us emotionally) will we also change our behavior and expect eve…
As a tiny micro example, I think Reddit's /r/myBoyfriendisAI is an early glimpse into something that's going to become far, far more common with time. One person talking to ChatGPT and reaching a state where they receive and accept a marriage proposal is a novelty. 100,000 people doing the same is something quite different.
Re: When did AI take over Hacker News?
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rather questioning first if the future being peddled is actually what we want The author (tom) tricked you. His article is flame bait. AI is a tool that we can use and discuss about. It's not just a "future being peddled." The article manages to say nothing about AI, casts generic doubt on AI as a whole, and pits people against each other. It's a giant turd for any discussion about AI, a sure-fire curiosity destruc…
If it were just any regular tool people (speaking for myself here mostly, but I see similar sentiments on HN) would be less annoyed and argumentative about it. Instead it's being shoved down our throats at every turn and is being marketed at the world as the Return of Christ. Whenever anyone says anything even slightly negative the evangelists crawl out of the woodwork to tell you how you're using the wrong model, or…
Why are you complaining about that?
If you want to complain about AI and have no interest in learning more about it, go somewhere else. This site isn’t for that kind of discussion