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

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#251

Post by mattigames »

JackFr wrote: post #136
zdragnar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain. I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calcula…

Well I can extract a square root by hand. We all had to learn it and got tested on it. No one to day learns that anymore. The vast, vast majority have no idea and I don’t think people are dumber because of it. That is to say, I think it’s not cut-and-dried. I agree you need to learn something, but something’s it’s okay use a tool.

Yes they are dumber because of it, not in the mental retardation kind of way but a more nuanced way, among others the mental work you put into trying to find another simpler way than the one the professor is teaching you, and the understanding about numbers such attempts can give you, even if they are unsuccessful.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#252

Post by socalgal2 »

zdragnar wrote: post #46
don_neufeld wrote: post #3

Completely agree. From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive. I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer. Lest you wonder “what does this gu…

Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain. I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calcula…

I am waiting for the day (maybe it's already here) when I can talk to an LLM to practice my 2nd language. It can correct everything I say, it can talk forever, it can challenge me to use new grammar or vocabularly. Note: I can speak all day in my 2nd language with friends but I wouldn't give a business presentation nor could I explain, as a native, how something technical works. If I watch a TV show I might understand 30%-99% but the more lawyers/military/goverment/science parts there are the more it's beyond my current level.

Getting exposure there is hard. Talking to friends just means more practice with what I already know but an LLM could help me practice things outside that area.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#253

Post by socalgal2 »

fennecbutt wrote: post #185
ay wrote: post #115

Very strange. Either the author uses some magic AI, or I am holding it wrong. I used LLMs since a couple of years, as a nice tool. Besides that: I have tried using LLMs to create cartoon pictures. The first impression is “wow”; but after a bunch of pictures you see the evidently repetitive “style”. Using LLMs to write poetry results is also quite cool at first, but after a few iterations you see the evidently repetit…

>evidently repetitive “style”. Use LORAs, write better prompts. I've done a lot of diffusion and especially in 2025 it's not difficult to get out something quite good. Repetitive style is funny, because that's what human artists do for the most part. I'm a furry, I look at a lot of art and individual styles are a well established fact.

Yes, most human artists have a repetitive style. In fact that's often how you recongize who made a piece of art.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#254

Post by mattigames »

radlad wrote: post #234
drdeca wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? While I essentially never have need to compute a square root by hand (unless it is a perfect square of course), shouldn’t one know how one would?

Why should one? Perhaps they should if it's relevant to their work, daily routine, or interests. But if they have no need for it?

Needs are all fabricated, Ludwig Wittgenstein said "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", the same thing happens with logical thinking and all its tools including math.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#255

Post by bowsamic »

abathologist wrote: post #159

I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…

> I don't mean that their jobs will be automated: I mean that they will cede sapience and resign to becoming robotic.

Exactly, there’s a huge section of humanity that actively wants to give away its humanity. They want to reduce themselves to nothing. Because, as you say, they cannot understand anything as having value other than economic artefacts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#256

Post by bowsamic »

fennecbutt wrote: post #181
abathologist wrote: post #159

I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

You have fallen into the very trap he is criticising: you are entirely focussed on the product and how it differs from other ones, and have no sense of your individual journey of thinking being relevant

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#257

Post by aorloff »

visarga wrote: post #246
jen729w wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh turns out ChatGPT generates exactly the level of banality that one would expect. https://chatgpt.com/canvas/shared/6827fcdd3ec88191ab6a2f3297... I don't want to read this story. I probably want to read one that a human author laboured over.

It would be a mistake to take the banality of current LLM outputs and extrapolate that into the future. Of course they are going to get better. But that is not the point - it is that in the chat room the human and LLM spark ideas off each other. Humans come with their own unique life experience and large context, LLMs come with their broad knowledge and skills.

There is a Borges short story written in the 1930s about "the Library" a supposed collection of all possible permutations of language, even misspellings and gibberish. In many ways, it is extremely prescient of AI.

To cut it short, in the end what Borges proposed is that the meaning comes from the stories, and that all the stories are really repetitions and permutations of the same set of humans stories (the Order) and that is what makes meaning.

So all a successful literary AI needs to do is figure out how to retell the same stories we have been telling but in a different context that is resonant today.

Simple right ?

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#258

Post by parodysbird »

fennecbutt wrote: post #181
abathologist wrote: post #159

I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

To emphasize again part of the post above: "The aim of our creation is communication and mutual-transformation".

When I write a poem in a birthday card for my wife to give her on her birthday, very little of the "meaning" that will be communicated to (and more importantly with) her is really from some generic semantic interpretation of the tokens. Instead, almost all of the meaning will come from it being an actual personal expression in a shared social context.

If I didn't grasp that second part, I might actually think that asking ChatGPT to write the poem and then copying it in my handwriting to give to her is about the same thing as if the same tokens written but from genuine personal creation. Over prolonged interaction, it could lead to a shared social context in which she generally treats certain things I say as little different than if ChatGPT returned them as output. Thus the shared social context and relationship is then degenerated and fairly inhuman (or "robotic" as the above post calls it).

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#259

Post by edanm »

socalgal2 wrote: post #252
zdragnar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain. I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calcula…

I am waiting for the day (maybe it's already here) when I can talk to an LLM to practice my 2nd language. It can correct everything I say, it can talk forever, it can challenge me to use new grammar or vocabularly. Note: I can speak all day in my 2nd language with friends but I wouldn't give a business presentation nor could I explain, as a native, how something technical works. If I watch a TV show I might understan…

For many languages, this is already something you can do.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#260

Post by nicbou »

I run an informative website for a living. If the trend continues, I will lose my job to AI trained on my content.

I get the feeling of pointlessness, but not because AI is making me obsolete. AI still needs me, because it still needs human beings to experience the real world and report on it. It need to copy someone's homework. It just destroys the economics of doing that homework.

But there is not the faintest chance of AI doing that sort of work itself. It might repeat what it knows, but it can't survey an audience, shake hands with industry experts, empathize with users, feel friction, or knock on doors.

These are still jobs for thinking humans.

Post reply on HN