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

ML promises to be profoundly weird

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 641 posts

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#291

Post by simianwords »

simoncion wrote: post #285
simianwords wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets stick to my challenge please - thinking version, find bullshit. If you can't, thats ok. Do you accept then under the constraints that the thinking version doesn't produce bullshit?

Given aphyr's vocation (and how very lucrative it is), and how years and years of his writing indicates that he's very devoted to getting a correct and complete answer when investigating a question, I find it hard to believe that he's not using a paid version of the LLMs. If I knew him, I'd ask and verify, but I don't, so I won't. > Lets stick to my challenge please... I did. Your challenge was literally: If it bulls…

> Use the thinking version gpt5.4 (text) and tell me if it bullshits

This was what I said. Text! Despite me specifically asking for text, you've shown a voice example. Not sure why?

I believe you and I agree that GPT 5.4 thinking on text that fits If we agree on this, I think the post doesn't capture this in spirit.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#292

Post by ACCount37 »

qsera wrote: post #203
rudhdb773b wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern LLMs are fairly good at that as well.

But that is bolted on and is not a core behavior.

Does it matter? Evolution is the brain's very own "pre-training". Hundreds of millions of years of priors hardwired.

We can do that for AIs too - pre-train on pure low Kolmogorov complexity synthetics. The AI then "knows things" before it sees any real data. Advantageous sometimes. Hard to pick compute efficient synthetics though.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#293

Post by simoncion »

simianwords wrote: post #291
simoncion wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given aphyr's vocation (and how very lucrative it is), and how years and years of his writing indicates that he's very devoted to getting a correct and complete answer when investigating a question, I find it hard to believe that he's not using a paid version of the LLMs. If I knew him, I'd ask and verify, but I don't, so I won't. > Lets stick to my challenge please... I did. Your challenge was literally: If it bulls…

> Use the thinking version gpt5.4 (text) and tell me if it bullshits This was what I said. Text! Despite me specifically asking for text, you've shown a voice example. Not sure why? I believe you and I agree that GPT 5.4 thinking on text that fits If we agree on this, I think the post doesn't capture this in spirit.

> This was what I said. Text!

No, that's what you said after I provided an example of paid ChatGPT emitting complete bullshit from a two sentence prompt.

The challenge you issued is at [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592>

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#294

Post by simianwords »

simoncion wrote: post #293
simianwords wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Use the thinking version gpt5.4 (text) and tell me if it bullshits This was what I said. Text! Despite me specifically asking for text, you've shown a voice example. Not sure why? I believe you and I agree that GPT 5.4 thinking on text that fits If we agree on this, I think the post doesn't capture this in spirit.

> This was what I said. Text! No, that's what you said after I provided an example of paid ChatGPT emitting complete bullshit from a two sentence prompt. The challenge you issued is at [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592 >

> If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit?

I have clearly written text prompt here. And I repeated a few times. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it. You are coming across as a bit of a bad faith arguer.

In any case, you agree that under these constraints bullshitting doesn’t exist?

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#295

Post by lelanthran »

steveklabnik wrote: post #229
lelanthran wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment. I am not representing your words as mine. I am not using your words to profit off. I am not making a gain by attributing your words to you. > There has to be lines for cases where requiring attribution is required, and cases where it is not. You are blurring the lines between "using a quote or likeness" and "giving credit to". I am skeptical that you d…

You made an incredibly strong statement that is much broader than what we are talking about. I am pointing out various cases where I think that broadness is incorrect, I am not equating the two. I do not think that, if you read, say, https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... , and then later, a friend asks you "hey, should I use String or &str here?" that you need my consent to go "at the start,…

> But again, I am not telling anyone else that they must agree with me. Simply stating my own relationship with my own creative output.

Look, I'm not saying that you are doing that, I'm pointing out that "Silence is consent" is not as strong an argument that many think it is.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#296

Post by lelanthran »

altruios wrote: post #272
lelanthran wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't mean that thinks that everyone has to share my perspective. It's just my own. I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether. Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.

refuse consent? You may need to clarify that thought. I don't think the poster has a viewpoint that 'refuses consent', their viewpoint is their writing they put for others to view is for others to view, regardless of how it is viewed. They seem to be giving consent, not refusing it, no?

> refuse consent?

Who said anything about refusing consent?

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#297

Post by throw310822 »

mayama wrote: post #158
erichocean wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is exactly the right term: the machines can do "intelligence", and they do so artificially. Just like we have machines that can do "math", and they do so artificially. Or "logic", and they do so artificially. I assume we'll drop the "artificial" part in my lifetime, since there's nothing truly artificial about it (just like math and logic), since it's really just mechanical. No one cares that transistors can do ma…

> AI is exactly the right term: the machines can do "intelligence", and they do so artificially. AI in pop culture doesn't mean that at all. Most people impression to AI pre-LLM craze was some form of media based on Asmiov laws of robotics. Now, that LLMs have taken over the world, they can define AI as anything they want.

> Most people impression to AI pre-LLM craze was some form of media based on Asmiov laws of robotics.

I'll reveal you a secret: "positronic brains" are just very fast parallel computers running LLMs.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#298

Post by simoncion »

simianwords wrote: post #294
simoncion wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was what I said. Text! No, that's what you said after I provided an example of paid ChatGPT emitting complete bullshit from a two sentence prompt. The challenge you issued is at [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592 >

> If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? I have clearly written text prompt here. And I repeated a few times. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it. You are coming across as a bit of a bad faith a…

> I have clearly written text prompt here.

How do you think the "voice" interface works? It runs speech-to-text on the input and turns the input into text. The LLMs don't decode voice, they work on text.

You can see this process in action on many of father_phi's videos.

Regardless, I expect that aphyr's reported results are on the very latest publicly-available ChatGPT models.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#299

Post by munificent »

steveklabnik wrote: post #187
munificent wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, totally! I still write and put stuff online. But it definitely feels different now. It used to feel like I was tending a public garden filled with other people who might enjoy it. It still kind of feels like that, but there are a handful of giant combine machines grinding their way around the garden harvesting stuff and making billionaires richer at the same time. It's not enough to dissuade me from contribut…

I can totally see that, for sure. I was much more likely to write a review long ago, now I don't even bother. (For buying stuff online, at least.) Maybe I lost my innocence about this stuff a long time ago, and so it's not so much LLMs that broke it for me, but maybe... I dunno, the downfall of Web 2.0 and the death of RSS? I do think that the old internet, for some definition of "old," felt different. For sure. I'll…

> I'm from the "information wants to be free" sort of persuasion, and now that largely makes me feel kinda old.

Me too, 100%. But that was during a moment in time when that information was more likely to be enabling a person who otherwise didn't have as many resources than enabling a billionaire to make their torment nexus 0.1% more powerful.

> I kinda had to accept that stuff I make was going to be used towards ends I didn't approve of. Something about that is in here too, I think.

Yeah, I've mostly made peace with that too.

The way I think about it is that when I make some digital thing and share it with the world, I'm (hopefully!) adding value to a bunch of people. I'm happiest if the distribution of that value lifts up people on the bottom end more than people on the top. I think inequality is one of the biggest problems in the world today and I aspire to have the web and the stuff I make chip away at it.

If my stuff ends up helping the rich and poor equally and doesn't really effect inequality one way or the other, I guess it's fine.

But in a world with AI, I worry that anything I put out there increases inequality and that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe that's just the way things are now and I have to accept it.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#300

Post by hackable_sand »

stavros wrote: post #88
masfuerte wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you insist on reading and commenting on these articles that bore you so much?

Because saying "this is boring, let's stop talking about it" is an opinion worthwhile of expression.

Oppressors don't like people talking about their oppression

Go figure

Post reply on HN