221–230 of 240 posts
Maybe it’s OpenAI being aware of the “attachment” issue and combating it by overcompensating in the opposite direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your conclusion, but that's by design. The goal is not to tell people the truth (how would they even do that). The goal is to give the answer that would have come from the training data if that question were asked. And the reality is that confirmation is part of life. You may even struggle to stay married if you don't learn to confirm your wife's perspectives.
All this, and yet, people are so angered by the term "stochastic parrot". I use LLMs every day, I use Claude, Gemini, they're great. But they are very elaborate autocomplete engines. I'm not really shaking off that impression of them despite daily use .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm seeing people that are technically savvy defend mediocre code and consumption based output (think technical briefs and reports). When the flaws in the output is highlighted in many cases it's brushed off as "good enough" or "nobody will care / notice". I think LLMs and more aptly SLMs have use cases. I enjoy using these tools to make quick work of simplifying and faster iteration of these relatively frequent but…
I am curious to know how you are coming to these conclusions. I have been a computer programmer for over 30 years, and I have pretty solid evidence that I am good at it. I have been using AI to write some very capable, well written, well tested, novel software projects. Now, is it easy to use coding AIs to generate really bad code? Yes. Does that mean it is impossible to get them to generate good code? No, I don't th…
What I have stated is what I have seen first hand and continue to see. They aren't conclusions, they are observations.
>I have been a computer programmer for over 30 years, and I have pretty solid evidence that I am good at it.
OK.
> I have been using AI to write some very capable, well written, well tested, novel software projects
That's great, I'm sure this is all true with the exception of "novel software projects". Any examples?
> Now, is it easy to use coding AIs to generate really bad code? Yes. Does that mean it is impossible to get them to generate good code? No, I don't think it is.
Sure. This is basically what I already said.
> Coding with AIs is just like any other type of coding, it takes skill and practice. Not everyone is able to create great code with AI, because you need to use it in the correct way.
There is no one correct way because LLMs are architecturally non-deterministic. You don't know how the LLM will respond for any given prompt.
> There are a lot of techniques that people have been discovering to get the AI to output better code. It is a very active field, and people are experimenting and coming up with frameworks and strategies to improve the quality. That work is paying dividends.
I never said LLMs didn't have a level of value, but it's not paying dividends if you take the true cost of LLMs. Frontier models are heavily subsidized at today's prices. Do you think Claude Code is worth $2k per month? $20k? Is increasing energy prices exponentially for people who don't care about software another one of these "dividends"? How do you quantify finite resources utilization vs generation of AI images? I'm curious.
> You can write very bad code with any language or tool. AI doesn't (yet!) allow non-coders to create great code, but it certainly can create great code in the hands of experts.
OK. But so then you're saying that this is a tool you need to have expertise in to use safely and effectively. Basically what I've already stated.
> "...great code in the hands of experts".
Anyone with the Internet who is an expert can create great code already. So your argument is that it saves experts time and you agree that AI can create poor code and insecure systems when left to "non-experts". But the part you're leaving out is that the AI won't tell the "non-experts" anything of the sort. How... Novel!
I think only some small percentage of the more dumb users would get attached to something that says they are right when they aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…
> Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. We need to be very very careful here. Just like advertisements work, weather you think you're immune or not, so does AI. You might think you're spotting every red flag, but of course you think so. You can't see all the ones you missed. Do not make the mistake of thinking that being techy somehow immunizes you from flattery. It works on you too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…
This is the best I’ve ever heard this put.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not antropomorphize LLMs" Precisely. Even for technical people, I doubt its possible to totally disallow your own brain from ever, unconciously, treating the entity you're speaking to like a sentient being. Most technical people still will have some emotion in their prompts, say please or thank you, give qualitative feedback for no reason, express anger towards…
Yes, I've experienced the sense that there's a person on the "other end" even when I have been perfectly aware that it's a bag of matrices. Brains just have people-detectors that operate below conscious awareness. We've been anthropomorphizing stuff as impersonal as the ocean for as long as there have been people, probably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not antropomorphize LLMs" Precisely. Even for technical people, I doubt its possible to totally disallow your own brain from ever, unconciously, treating the entity you're speaking to like a sentient being. Most technical people still will have some emotion in their prompts, say please or thank you, give qualitative feedback for no reason, express anger towards…
Yes, I've experienced the sense that there's a person on the "other end" even when I have been perfectly aware that it's a bag of matrices. Brains just have people-detectors that operate below conscious awareness. We've been anthropomorphizing stuff as impersonal as the ocean for as long as there have been people, probably.
When a LLM tells me I'm right, especially deep in a conversation, unless I was already sure about something, I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM. It sets off my "spidey-sense". I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that. Every time I read about someone who has gone down a dark road using LLMs I am constantly amazed at how much they "fall" for the LL…
> I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that It's one thing to say you have found an effective method to counter LLMs' "positivity bias", but do you really not understand human psychology here? People respond positively to other people telling them they are right, or who like them. We've evolved this psychology, it's how the human mind works. You tend to like people who like you, it's a self-reinfor…
I think this varies by person. It tends to worry me if I don't get at least some pushback on things.
(I think this may be part of why I find 'talking' to LLMs to offputting.)