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

281–290 of 500 posts

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#281

Post by delaminator »

runarberg wrote: post #242
delaminator wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I hate CGI video" "So you hated the TV Series Ugly Betty then?" "What? that's not CGI!" This video is 15 years old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjorAhcnbY

Your case would have been better if you had used Mad Max: Fury Road , or even Titanic as examples, rather then a mediocre TV show nobody remembers. Ugly Betty used green screens to make production cheaper, that did not improve the show (although it may have improved the profit margins). Mad Max: Fury Road on the other hand used CGI to significantly improve the visual experience. The added CGI probably increased the c…

> mediocre TV show

Won 3 Primetime Emmys

52 wins & 124 nominations total

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805669/awards/

I guess it's just too lowbrow for you.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#283

Post by teleforce »

Whether we like it or not, the only constant in life is change.

>What's the Excel of JSON

Ever heard of CUE that's compatible with JSON and YAML introduced by ex-Googlers? It seamlessly support both types and values, whereas Excel supports ephemeral values [1].

Both CUE and original Excel are non-Turing complete so they don't have the notorious and tricky halting problem.

Someone need to seamlessly integrate LLM with CUE, its NLP deterministic distant cousin based on lattice-valued logic [2],[3].

Truth be told LLM are like the automated loom machine during 19th CE Britain that kick started the industrial revolution. Heck the Toyota conglomerate was once the pioneer of the modern automated loom manufacturer, and looks where they are now after embracing change and pivoted to vehicle manufacturing.

The automated loom machine commoditize the manual looming industry (not unlike modern software engineering) to its oblivion in India, that turned the rich Moghul India with the highest GDP in the whole wide world into the lowest GDP for India during colonial time (include Indian sub-continent namely Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh here if you want apple to apple comparison) [4].

Ignore LLM at your peril in the name of so-called moral authenticity/forgery/lie/etc, and you can go the way of 20th CE India and its sub-continent, settling only at a fraction of its Moghul empire in term of GDP at its very peak.

> Is there a standard CRDT-like protocol for syncing editable graphs yet?

It's for other HN comments but spoiler alert it's called D4M by the nice folks from MIT [5]. We probably don't need full CRDT, local-first capability with eventual consistency will be more than suffice for most things that are of importance.

[1] CUE lang:

https://cuelang.org/

[2] The Logic of CUE:

https://cuelang.org/docs/concept/the-logic-of-cue/

[3] Guardrailing Intuition: Towards Reliable AI:

https://cue.dev/blog/guardrailing-intuition-towards-reliable...

[4] Economy of the Mughal Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Mughal_Empire

[5] D4M: Dynamic Distributed Dimensional Data Model:

https://d4m.mit.edu/

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#284

Post by 1899-12-30 »

hiddevb wrote: post #209
BloondAndDoom wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think I agree with this take. I love procedural generation, and there is definitely a craft to it. Creating a process that generates a playable level or world is just very interesting to explore as an emergent system. I don't think LLMs will make these system more interesting by default. Of course there are still things to explore in this new space. It's similar to generative/plotter art compared to a midjour…

The key to non-disruptive LLM integration is using it in a purely additive way, supplementing a feature with functionality that couldn't be done before rather than replacing an existing part. Like adding ai generated images to accompany the dwarf fortress artifact descriptions. It could completely togglable and doesn't disrupt any existing mechanics, but would provide value to those that don't mind the slop.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#286

Post by slibhb »

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…

> What matters in the end is that this tech is not to empower a common person (although it could).

How do you figure? 20 dollars/month is insanely cheap for what OpenAI/Anthropic/Google offer. That absolutely qualifies as "empowering a common person". It lowers barriers!

A lot of the anti-AI sentiment on HN concerns people losing their jobs. I don't think this will happen: programmers who know what they're doing are going to be way, way more effective at using AIs to generate code than others.

But even if it is true and we do see job losses in tech: are software devs really "in a precarious position"? Do they really qualify as "those that have little"? Seems like a fantasy to me. Computer programmers have done great over the past 30 years.

More broadly, anti-AI sentiment comes from people who dislike change. It's hard to argue someone out of that position. You're allowed to prefer stasis. But the world moves on and I think it's best to remain optimistic, keep an open mind, and make the most of it.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#287

Post by f311a »

raincole wrote: post #93
hwers wrote: post #75

Its unfortunate that there’s mode collapse around what the consensus “best way” to use these things are. It’s too bad we didn’t have a period where these things were great teachers but didn’t attempt to write code because in my opinion the ideal way to use them is not by agents mass producing sloppy buggy disorganized code, but to teach you things way faster than the old alternatives, rubber duck, and occasionally wr…

> It’s too bad we didn’t have a period where these things were great teachers but didn’t attempt to write code The period is now. Just add "be a great teacher but don't attempt to write code" in the prompt. (yes, it's a teacher who gets things wrong from time to time. You still need to refer to the source and ground truth just like when you're taught by a human teacher.)

No, expectations have shifted. In a lot of companies, managers expect you to use LLMs to produce more features faster.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#288

Post by 3371 »

Jooror wrote: post #279
3371 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharing my 2 cents. In the past 2 months I've been using all the SOTA models to help me design a new DSL for narrative scripting (such as game story telling) and a c# runtime implementation o the script player engine. The language spec and design is about 95% authored by me up to this point; I have the LLMs work on the 2nd layer: the implementation specs/guidelines and the 3rd layer: concrete c# implementation. Since…

I wonder if my intuition here is correct; I would posit that “PL implementation” is a far more popular and well-explored field than it seems. How many toy/small/labor-of-love langs make it to Show HN? How many more simply don’t? I’ve never personally caught the language implementation bug. I appreciate your perspective here.

I totally agree, and I was fully aware of how common people make language for fun when I replied.

But I feel like the rationale would still stands: Considering LLMs' natures, common boilerplate tasks are easy because they can kind of just "decompress" from training data. But for a new language design, unless the language is almost identical to some other captured by the model, "decompression" would just fail.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#289

Post by nerdyadventurer »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #254
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…

At some point, if most people lose their jobs, you have no market to sell your services to. So, either, new jobs have to be created in order to keep the capitalism machine running, or you have to provide for the needs of every human being from whatever you're doing with your AI. Otherwise, a lot of hungry people revolt and you have violence against these businesses. I think new jobs will be created because AI is alwa…

Economy is going to collapse with the war anyways. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ql24Z8SIeE&t=247s)

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#290

Post by nayroclade »

vips7L wrote: post #274
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before mass production, the women of the household would be forced to spend every free moment of their day, outside of their other work, making fabric. Before mechanised farming, the men were forced to spend all day in the fields. Never again.

And yet many of us would prefer to be in a field instead of behind a laptop screen all day.

There's a big difference between being in a field versus working in a field, from dawn to dusk, every day, regardless of the weather or sickness, in order to produce just enough food to feed you and your family, knowing that a single failed harvest (due to conditions like weather and pests that you have no control over) will leave you starving, watching helplessly as your children, spouse, friends and neighbours slowly weaken and die, knowing that even if you survive, you will face the same thing again the next year, and the next, for the rest of your lives, which will likely be short, due to the constant, exhausting labour, frequent bouts of malnutrition, and nonexistent medical care.
Post reply on HN