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

441–450 of 500 posts

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#441

Post by pixl97 »

spacecadet wrote: post #427
pixl97 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dinosaurs lived 100 million years, before they didn't. And walls between France and Germany were effective, until they weren't. Hell, even the 'people' is the problem doesn't work well for things like Moloch problems. Which people? The problem can no longer be pointed at any individual but a super-organizational response. Once you have an issue that is abstracted from it's base components, then any agent capable of p…

Im familiar. Our group employs game theory in our research... In practice, if you are at the point of blame- yes you have failed.

God damnit eukaryotes, I told you this bullshit was going to have long term ramifications 2 billion years ago!

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#442

Post by blakeem567 »

An LLM cannot lie because a lie requires intent to deceive. These are falsehoods, and LLM has no intent or free will. It's only a lie if it's knowingly passed off a truth and this happens by the user and not the LLM or other generative AI.

This also makes some blanket statement about procedural generation and shows a No Man's Sky image. That game became a huge success.

They said "Classic procedural generation is noteworthy here as a precedent, which gamers were already familiar with, because by and large it has failed to deliver."

I could name a dozens of games that were successful and used procedural generation. Including games like Minecraft, similar games like Valheim, indie games like Wildermyth that is used to create a great character narrative, and even games like Diablo. The more recent hit Mewgenics is also procedural along with past Edmund McMillen games. I swear this person never played a video game before.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#443

Post by thunky »

raincole wrote: post #143
Sharlin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times. Before LLMs we did already have a way to "save developers time from writing the same thing that has been done by other developers for a thousand times", you know? A LLM doing the same thing the 1001st time is not code reuse. Code reuse is code reuse.

Because code reuse is hard. Like, really hard. If it weren't we wouldn't be laughing at left-pad. If it weren't hard we wouldn't have so many front-end JavaScript frameworks. If it weren't Unreal wouldn't still have their own GC and std-like implementation today. Java wouldn't have been reinventing build system every five years. The whole history of programming tool is exploring how to properly reuse code: are functi…

> Because code reuse is hard. > humans are yet not smart enough to properly reuse code

All of these difficulties you outline are because program designs cater to the human developer experience over the machine.

If this weren't the case Python wouldn't exist because it's clearly not made with mechanical sympathy in mind. Dynamic languages as a whole would probably not exist.

It's because humans will never agree with eachother or with machines and that's what has led us to the proliferation of complexity and lack of reuse we see everywhere.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#444

Post by astrange »

emsign wrote: post #17
GuestFAUniverse wrote: post #10

And "lazy". Claude makes me mad: even when I ask for small code snippets to be improved, it increasingly starts to comment "what I could improve" in the code I stead of generating the embarrassingly easy code with the improvement itself. If I point it to that by something like "include that yourself", it does a decent job. That's so _L_azy.

LLMs are cheaters because their goal isn't to produce good code but to please the human.

You can see what Claude's goal is, and it's not that.

https://www.anthropic.com/constitution

> Anthropic wants Claude to be genuinely helpful to the people it works with or on behalf of, as well as to society, while avoiding actions that are unsafe, unethical, or deceptive.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#445

Post by spicyusername »

boesboes wrote: post #180
spicyusername wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

luddites were right And yet in the 200 years since human civilization has improved by every imaginable metric, in most cases by orders of magnitude. The difference between 2026 and 1826 is nearly incomprehensible. I suspect most people scarcely imagine how horrific the average life was in 1826, relatively speaking. And between then and now were the industrial revolution, multiple world wars, and generally some of the…

try reading :)

Got any recommendations?

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#446

Post by bitwize »

> So allow me to drop a line that would shock a weathered San Franciscan more than open defecation on Market Street: it's perfectly okay not to use AI.

No. When it comes to software development, AI use is best practice now; if you're not proficient in the tools you're not really a professional software engineer. Shape up or ship out.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#447

Post by eucyclos »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #385
eucyclos wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I would argue that chatbots still barely pass the turing test They have such obvious patterns and tells that humans have already picked up on them and they can eventually sus out that they're talking to an LLM For instance I heard recently about someone talking (verbally) with an AI voiced customer support. They were very convinced, so they asked the support agent to calculate the product of two large numbers, and it…

Barely pass is still a step change though. Either you can be sure what's on the other end of the line or you can't, and I'd say that, while there are still tests that work sometimes, for a purely text based exchange there are none that will work at all times.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#448

Post by antonvs »

Ensorceled wrote: post #419
Almondsetat wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it is "wildly uneducated" to have, and express, strong opinions about ANY field of endeavour where you cannot substantiate your claims.

Honest question: are you enjoying this? I looked at your comment history and you don't seem like a troll. What is going on right now?

The person you’re replying to has only posted two short comments in this thread.

The reason a few different people are arguing this point is because it is in fact wrong, or at least poorly expressed, to refer to someone’s unfamiliarity with some aspect of a field like the gaming market as “wildly uneducated.”

Ironically, the person using that phrase is demonstrating a lack of understanding of its common meaning, suggesting that they may be a better fit for the word “uneducated”. See e.g: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uneducated

> What is going on right now?

As Wittgenstein put it, we’re playing language games.

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#449

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"It's undeniable there's a metric gigaton of hype surrounding the technology."

Why does the hype (cf. "LLMs") need to be defended

For example, it's unlikely to see HN replies that go something like, "Yeah the hype sucks, but..."

Instead, there will almost always be attempts to defend against any criticism of _the hype_

A comment such as "I do not use LLMs", i.e., I don't believe the hype, is likely to be challenged

That's weird, IMHO

Re: The L in "LLM" Stands for Lying

#450

Post by array_key_first »

orthoxerox wrote: post #127
theshrike79 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What if my pasties cannot be singled out by any Karelian chef in a blind taste test? Does it matter how they were made?

Yes, because when it comes to most artist expression the process behind it is the product. These pastries have cultural weight, so their value is inseperable from that.

Think of it this way. Nobody would eat a Karelian pastry and not care that it's Karelian. That's why they're eating it, otherwise they'd just eat some other pastry without the cultural weight.

It's the same thing with paintings and sculptures. The painting has value because someone thought it up and put the time to make it. And you view it not for the colors, but what they mean. Why did they choose to paint this? What was going through their heads? What is their perspective?

If you just shoot out a painting, it has no value, because the value isn't the painting. It's your take, your perspective, and the painting is a tiny window into that.

Post reply on HN