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

41–50 of 500 posts

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#41

Post by theshrike79 »

raincole wrote: post #34

> Video games stand out as one market where consumers have pushed back effectively No, it's simply untrue. Players only object against AI art assets. And only when they're painfully obvious. No one cares about how the code is written. If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well. It's specifically worded like this: > content such as artwork,…

Also "AI" has been in gaming, especially mobile gaming, for a literal decade already.

Household name game studios have had custom AI art asset tooling for a long time that can create art quickly, using their specific style.

AI is a tool and as Steve Jobs said, you can hold it wrong. It's like plastic surgery, you only notice the bad ones and object to them. An expert might detect the better jobs, but the regular folk don't know and for the most part don't care unless someone else tells them to care.

And then they go around blaming EVERYTHING as AI.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#42

Post by eucyclos »

simianwords wrote: post #29

What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code. Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzz…

I wrote a book a while back where I argued that coding involves choosing what to work on, writing it, and then debugging it, and that we tend to master these steps in reverse chronological order.

It's weird to look at something that recent and think how dated it reads today. I also wrote about the Turing test as some major milestone of AI development, when in fact the general response to programs passing the Turing test was to shrug and minimize it

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#44

Post by wonnage »

xg15 wrote: post #33
vladms wrote: post #31

> Whether something is a forgery is innate in the object and the methods used to produce it. It doesn't matter if nobody else ever sees the forged painting, or if it only hangs in a private home. It's a forgery because it's not authentic. On a philosophical level I do not get the discussions about paintings. I love a painting for what it is not for being the first or the only one. An artist that paints something that…

> An artist that paints something that I can't distinguish from a Van Gogh is a very skillful artist and the painting is very beautiful. There are a lot such artists who can do that after having seen Van Gogh's paintings before . Only Van Gogh (as far as we know) did paint those without having seen anything like it before - in other words, he had a new idea.

Even the mechanical skill of painting gets a lot harder without an example to look at. Most people can get pretty good at painting from example within a year or two but it’s a big leap to simply paint from memory, much less create something original.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#46

Post by theshrike79 »

boxed wrote: post #22
theshrike79 wrote: post #11

> This sort of protectionism is also seen in e.g. controlled-appelation foods like artisanal cheese or cured ham. These require not just traditional manufacturing methods and high-quality ingredients from farm to table, but also a specific geographic origin. Maybe "Artisanal Coding" will be a thing in the future?

This geographic protection is extremely bogus in many cases, if not most cases, which imo undermines his argument.

Not really, it's a matter of protecting heritage.

Like you can still make Karelian pies[0] anywhere, but unless you follow the exact recipe, you can't sell them as "Karelian pies". It's good for the heritage and good for the customers.

You can also make any cheeses and wines and whatever you like, it's just how you name them and market them that's regulated.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_pasty

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#48

Post by jesterswilde »

vladms wrote: post #31

> Whether something is a forgery is innate in the object and the methods used to produce it. It doesn't matter if nobody else ever sees the forged painting, or if it only hangs in a private home. It's a forgery because it's not authentic. On a philosophical level I do not get the discussions about paintings. I love a painting for what it is not for being the first or the only one. An artist that paints something that…

Regarding art, what do you feel about museums? Why would you go see an original instead of simply looking at a jpg.

Even if you aren't in the group, there is clearly a group of people who appreciate seeing the original, the thing that modified our collective artistic trajectory.

Forgeries and master studies have a long history in art. Every classically trained worth their salt has a handful of forgeries under their belt. Remaking work that you enjoy helps you appreciate it further, understand the choices they made and get a better for feel how they wielded the medium. Though these forgeries are for learning and not intended to be pieces in their own right.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#49

Post by wonnage »

simianwords wrote: post #29

What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code. Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzz…

Boilerplate has been with us since the dawn of programming.

I still think LLMs as fancy autocomplete is the truth and not even a dig. Autocomplete is great. It works best when there’s one clear output desired (even if you don’t know exactly what it is yet). Nobody is surprised when you type “cal” and California comes up in an address form, why should we be surprised when you describe a program and the code is returned?

Knowledge has the same problem as cosmology, the part we can observe doesn’t seem to account for the vast majority of what we know us out there. Symbolic knowledge encompasses unfathomable multitudes and will eventually be solved by AI but the “dark matter” of knowledge that can’t easily be expressed in language or math is still out in the wild

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#50

Post by Papazsazsa »

simianwords wrote: post #29

What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code. Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzz…

This is actually quite an insightful comment into the mindset of the tech set vs. the many writers and artists whose only 'boilerplate redundant code' is the language itself, and a loose aggregate of ideas and philosophies.

Probably the original sin here is that we started calling them programming languages instead of just 'computer code'.

Also - most of your work is far more than mere novelty! There are intangibles like your intellectual labor and time.

Post reply on HN