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

Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 478 posts

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#461

Post by namaria »

dsign wrote: post #301
lukev wrote: post #40

This is a bit of a meta-comment, but reading through the responses to a post like this is really interesting because it demonstrates how our collective response to this stuff is (a) wildly divergent and (b) entirely anecdote-driven. I have my own opinions, but I can't really say that they're not also based on anecdotes and personal decision-making heuristics. But some of us are going to end up right and some of us ar…

You want to block subjectivity? Write some formulas. There are three questions to consider: a) Have we, without any reasonable doubt, hit a wall for AI development? Emphasis on "reasonable doubt". There is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is roughly spherical. That level of certainty. b) Depending on your answer for (a), the next question to consider is if we the humans have motivations to continue developing AI. c…

If you're gonna formulate this conversation as a satisfiability problem you should be aware that this is an NP-complete problem (and actually working on that problem is the source of the insight that there is such as thing as NP-completeness).

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#462

Post by namaria »

pdimitar wrote: post #447
behnamoh wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use this: I don't want to drastically change my current code, nor do I like being told to create several new files and numerous functions/classes to solve this problem. I want you to think clearly and be focused on the task and don't get wild! I want the most straightforward approach which is elegant, intuitive, and rock solid.

As a caveat, I told it to make minimal code for one task and it completely skipped a super important aspect of it, justifying it by saying that I said "minimal". Not cool, Claude 3.7, not cool.

Doesn't trading prompt patches trying to get around undefined behavior from the model make you wonder if this is a net positive?

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#463

Post by pdimitar »

namaria wrote: post #462
pdimitar wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a caveat, I told it to make minimal code for one task and it completely skipped a super important aspect of it, justifying it by saying that I said "minimal". Not cool, Claude 3.7, not cool.

Doesn't trading prompt patches trying to get around undefined behavior from the model make you wonder if this is a net positive?

Huh? I'm not even sure what you said, can you clarify?

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#464

Post by namaria »

pdimitar wrote: post #463
namaria wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't trading prompt patches trying to get around undefined behavior from the model make you wonder if this is a net positive?

Huh? I'm not even sure what you said, can you clarify?

I thought the value proposition of using LLMs to code is the lesser cognitive load of just describing what you want in natural language. But if it turns out writing the prompt is so involved, you end up trading snippets on forums and you often run into undefined behavior (the thing you described turned out to be ambiguous to the LLM and it gave you something you did not expect at all)...

I have to wonder, wouldn't just writing the code be more productive in the end?

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#465

Post by pdimitar »

namaria wrote: post #464
pdimitar wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I'm not even sure what you said, can you clarify?

I thought the value proposition of using LLMs to code is the lesser cognitive load of just describing what you want in natural language. But if it turns out writing the prompt is so involved, you end up trading snippets on forums and you often run into undefined behavior (the thing you described turned out to be ambiguous to the LLM and it gave you something you did not expect at all)... I have to wonder, wouldn't ju…

Yes and no.

Yes: if you are an expert in the area. In this case I needed something fairly specific I am far from an expert in. I know both Elixir and Rust quite well but couldn't quickly figure out how to be able to wrap a Rust object in just the right container(s) data type(s) so it can be safely accessed from any OS thread even though the object at hand is `Send` but not `Sync`. And I wanted it done without a mutex.

No: because most programming languages are just verbose. Many times I know _exactly_ what I will write 10 minutes later but I still have to type it out. If I can describe it to an LLM well enough then part of that time is saved.

Mind you, I am usually an LLM hater. They are over-glorified, they don't "reason" and they don't "understand" -- it baffles me to this day that an audience seemingly as educated as HN believes in that snake oil.

That being said, they are still a useful tool and as good engineers it's on us to recognize a tool's utility and its strong and weak usages and adapt our workflows to that. I believe me and many others do just that.

The rest... believe in forest nymphs.

So yeah. I agree that a significant part of the time it's just quicker to type it out. But people like myself are good at articulating their needs so with us it's often a coin toss. I choose to type the code out myself more often than not because (1) I don't want to pay for any LLM yet and (2) I don't want to forget my craft which I love to this day and never did it just for the money.

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#466

Post by namaria »

pdimitar wrote: post #465
namaria wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the value proposition of using LLMs to code is the lesser cognitive load of just describing what you want in natural language. But if it turns out writing the prompt is so involved, you end up trading snippets on forums and you often run into undefined behavior (the thing you described turned out to be ambiguous to the LLM and it gave you something you did not expect at all)... I have to wonder, wouldn't ju…

Yes and no. Yes: if you are an expert in the area. In this case I needed something fairly specific I am far from an expert in. I know both Elixir and Rust quite well but couldn't quickly figure out how to be able to wrap a Rust object in just the right container(s) data type(s) so it can be safely accessed from any OS thread even though the object at hand is `Send` but not `Sync`. And I wanted it done without a mutex…

Thanks for the perspective. I don't feel love or hate, I am just perplexed (haha) about the discourse around it sometimes.

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#467

Post by pdimitar »

namaria wrote: post #466
pdimitar wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Yes: if you are an expert in the area. In this case I needed something fairly specific I am far from an expert in. I know both Elixir and Rust quite well but couldn't quickly figure out how to be able to wrap a Rust object in just the right container(s) data type(s) so it can be safely accessed from any OS thread even though the object at hand is `Send` but not `Sync`. And I wanted it done without a mutex…

Thanks for the perspective. I don't feel love or hate, I am just perplexed (haha) about the discourse around it sometimes.

Difficult for me not to hate LLMs when there are literal hundreds of billions at stake and people are lying through their teeth for money, as they always do.

Which does lead to all the weird discourse around them indeed.

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#468

Post by namaria »

pdimitar wrote: post #467
namaria wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the perspective. I don't feel love or hate, I am just perplexed (haha) about the discourse around it sometimes.

Difficult for me not to hate LLMs when there are literal hundreds of billions at stake and people are lying through their teeth for money, as they always do. Which does lead to all the weird discourse around them indeed.

> there are literal hundreds of billions at stake and people are lying through their teeth for money, as they always do.

That's pretty much how I've felt about life in this world ever since I can remember.

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#469

Post by pdimitar »

namaria wrote: post #468
pdimitar wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difficult for me not to hate LLMs when there are literal hundreds of billions at stake and people are lying through their teeth for money, as they always do. Which does lead to all the weird discourse around them indeed.

> there are literal hundreds of billions at stake and people are lying through their teeth for money, as they always do. That's pretty much how I've felt about life in this world ever since I can remember.

And you were correct then, and you're correct now.

I have no clue where it came from but I've been like that since I don't know, 12-13 years old to this day (45 now).

Re: Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

#470

Post by billforsternz »

CivBase wrote: post #437
billforsternz wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's final calculation was reasonably accurate at 24,582,115 golf balls - even though 1000 ÷ 0.00004068 = 24,582,104. Maybe it was using more significant figures for the golf ball size than it showed in its answer? 1000 ÷ 0.00004068 = 25,000,000. I think this is an important point that's increasingly widely misunderstood. All those extra digits you show are just meaningless noise and should be ruthlessly eliminated…

I agree those digits are not significant in the context of the question asked. But if the AI is going to use that level of precision in the answer, I expect it to be correct.

Fair enough, I agree, simple arithmetic calculations shouldn't generate mysterious answers.
Post reply on HN