> it’s definitely a revolution in access to information Did you mean: Google?
An example from last night. If I Google “how much is 7KwH”, I get a list of calculator websites for converting units. If I ask an LLM, it tells me “your usage is pretty low for an apartment, good job!” The latter is exactly the question I had in mind. Not even close.
You said revolution, that’s barely incremental. If you had googled “apartment electricity usage calculator” you would find many options that provide exactly the information you want without risk of hallucination.
If I may, I think it has to do with this... and it's about to get weirder and weirder unless you change the paradigm: https://safebots.ai/declarative.html
My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured. At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing. > [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular e…
Read enough of EGreg’s posts and you’ll immediately recognize that this site is definitely his but at least LLMs stopped him posting about qbix all the time, a sweet mercy
An example from last night. If I Google “how much is 7KwH”, I get a list of calculator websites for converting units. If I ask an LLM, it tells me “your usage is pretty low for an apartment, good job!” The latter is exactly the question I had in mind. Not even close.
Did you deliberately screw up the capitalization so thoroughly that it bears no resemblance to the standard abbreviations? Are you one of those people who writes about "mb" and "kb" for computers, too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour Obviously, LLMs are quite tolerant of typos, and even ignore mis-capitalization, or it may have at least tried to correct your improper usages.
“what’s unnecessary is prickly commenters who call out ordinary English writing for no fuckin’ reason except to smell their own fuckin’ farts, so MYOB”
Really? Interacting with an LLM feels like stepping on a slug. It's just gross.
Do you mean like inadvertently interacting with an LLM like when you call a customer service line and you get AI? I find it hard to imagine having a chatbot fix your broken SQL query or summarize some event be experienced as gross.
Exchanging messages with an algorithm that pretends to have a concept of self and emotions is inherently disturbing.
My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured. At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing. > [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular e…
Read enough of EGreg’s posts and you’ll immediately recognize that this site is definitely his but at least LLMs stopped him posting about qbix all the time, a sweet mercy
I’m flattered that you followed my posts long enough to have an opinion on all this and even can recognize if a site is “definitely mine”.
Question though — what do you have against what I’m saying or working hard towards?
Trying to create healthier versions of technologies and help people?
If I may, I think it has to do with this... and it's about to get weirder and weirder unless you change the paradigm: https://safebots.ai/declarative.html
My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured. At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing. > [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular e…
Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”. Did you just make that up to add some oomph?
The actual point of the article was: recursive self improvement is scary and upredictable, you can get 99% of the benefit by doing the reliable and predictable thing instead. Did you even read the actual article? I didn’t see anything in your comment about that main thesis which is woven through — well — every paragraph.
Update: oh, I went through your recent comment history and apparently most of it is just snarky criticisms of surface level things. Okay :)
> A study by MIT found that students who use AI to write show far less brain activity than those who used classic Google searching (with AI off) or those who used neither. Other studies find that students who use AI retain far less of the information that ends up in their writing, possibly as a result of “cognitive offloading” and “cognitive surrender.” I'm unconvinced that AI will make us all dumber. In the public p…
That professor at Brown I think was able to verify that all but one of like 90 students had used AI on the midterm. The heroic naïf improved on the final. The part you miss, if I follow, is that the going view is that youre a chump if you don’t.
It really is absolutely clear that higher education is over for good unless radical measures are taken. You can calculate the economic conquences. Colleagues are adopting 19th c tech and it may be well for universities to enforce them across the board
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/learning-assessm...
My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured. At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing. > [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular e…
Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”. Did you just make that up to add some oomph? The actual point of the article was: recursive self improvement is scary and upredictable, you can get 99% of the benefit by doing the reliable and predictable thing instead. Did you even read the actual article? I didn’t see anything in your comment about that main thesis whi…
> Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”.
In the quotes I noted [Architecture Page], which is the extremely prominent blue button/link on the SafeBots homepage. (To a PDF.)
It's on the slide "Scalability: Distributed Reasoning & Encrypted DAGs", number 11 with a black background.
> Did you just make that up
I choose to take this false-accusation as a positive sign that we feel the same way.
You read the text I quoted and (just like me) felt it somehow didn't make much sense... and you felt that very so strongly that you could not believe it even existed!
Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone.
There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
This piece is a little odd for me. I don't understand the logic behind this: "read Kant and found it to be dense and impenetrable...an AI generated summary would have helped" followed by "Would it have improved comprehension? No." Why? Because "research says so." Wut? (still waiting for one or more HN commenters to freak out because the article has gasp! multiple em-dashes)
As someone approaching their 50s, I do appreciate your diplomacy. You could have just posted "okay Boomer" or an old man shaking his fist at the sky meme.
This essay bothers me for a number of reasons. I missed the em-dashes, because I listen to it, (un?)fortunately. But even in audio, it does sound a bit like AI slop. Essentially, it just reiterates every single short-sellers trope that's been developed over the last few years.
And if it is, in fact, a real human being — well, that pretty much tells you all you need to know about America, its think tanks, and the caliber of human beings leading this nation for the last 40 years.
But I do believe one thing for sure and that is that it's time to separate the wheat from the chaff and consolidate. There will be a lot more of this — the market demands men tilting at windmills, and margins to exploit.