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

I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#511

Post by mdp2021 »

vidarh wrote: post #502
cogman10 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wah, it can't write code like a Senior engineer with 20 years of experience! No, that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. Sure, sometimes it produces useful code. And often, it'll simply call the "doTheHardPart()" method. I've even caught it literally writing the wrong algor…

People fabricated a lot too. Yesterday I spent far less time fixing issues in the far more complex and larger changes Claude Code managed to churn out than what the junior developer I worked with needed. Sometimes it's the reverse. But with my time factored in, working with Claude Code is generally more productive for me than working with a junior. The only reason I still work with a junior dev is as an investment in…

You are mixing a point and the issue, largely heterogeneous: Claude being a champion in producing good code vs LLMs in general being delirious.

If your junior developer is just "junior", that is one matter; if your junior developer hallucinates documentation details, that's different.

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#512

Post by melagonster »

gilbetron wrote: post #109

I get so confused on this. I play around, test, and mess with LLMs all the time and they are miraculous. Just amazing, doing things we dreamed about for decades. I mean, I can ask for obscure things with subtle nuance where I misspell words and mess up my question and it figures it out. It talks to me like a person. It generates really cool images. It helps me write code. And just tons of other stuff that astounds me…

You forget the large group of people that proudly declare they invent AGI and they can make everyone lose jobs and starve. complains are for them, not for you.

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#514

Post by tonyhart7 »

111111101101 wrote: post #269
genidoi wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain is here to stay, this is way past the point of "believing in the tech" - recently an wss:// order book exchange (Hyperliquid) crossed $1T volume traded, and they started in 2023. Blockchains are becoming real-time data structures where everyone has admin level read-only access to everyone.

HN doesn't like blockchain. They had the chance to get in very early and now they're salty. I first heard about bitcoin on HN, before Silk Road made headlines.

"HN doesn't like blockchain"

HN not believe blockchain same way Apple,Microsoft,Google etc does

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#515

Post by rohit89 »

nemothekid wrote: post #328
jasondigitized wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who doesn't understand this either isn't required to use to utility it provides or has no idea how to prompt it correctly. My wife is a bookkeeper. There are some tasks that are a pain in the ass without writing some custom code. In her case, we just saved her about 2 hours by asking Claude to do it. It wrote the code, applied the code to a CSV we uploadrd and gave us exactly what we needed in 2 minutes.

> Anyone who doesn't understand this either isn't required to use to utility it provides or has no idea how to prompt it correctly. Almost every counter-criticism of LLMs almost boil down to 1. you're holding it wrong 2. Well, I use it $DAYJOB and it works great for me! (And $DAYJOB is software engineering). I'm glad your wife was able to save 2 hours of work, but forgive me if that doesn't translate to the trillion…

> 1. you're holding it wrong

When computers/internet first came about, there were (and still are!) people who would struggle with basic tasks. Without knowing the specific task you are trying to do, its hard to judge whether its a problem with the model or you.

I would also say that prompting isn't as simple as made out to be. It is a skill in itself and requires you to be a good communicator. In fact, I would say there is a reasonable chance that even if we end up with AGI level models, a good chunk of people will not be able to use it effectively because they can't communicate requirements clearly.

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#516

Post by mdp2021 »

anon291 wrote: post #327
Animats wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. Still the elephant in the room. We need an AI technology that can output "don't know" when appropriate. How's that coming along?

How many companies train on data that contains 'i don't know' responses. Have you ever talked with a toddler / young child? You need to explicitly teach children to not bull shit. At least I needed to teach mine.

> train on data that contains 'i don't know' responses

The "dunno" must not be hardcoded in the data, it must be an output of judgement.

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#518

Post by mdp2021 »

chii wrote: post #426
nonethewiser wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. … I've both seen online and heard people quote LLM output as if it were authoritative. Thats not an LLM problem. But indeed quite bothersome. Dont tell me what Chatgpt told you. Tell me what you know. Maybe you got it from ChatGPT and verified it. Great. But my jaw kind of drops when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct.

> when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct. people used to say the exact same thing with wikipedia back when it first started.

And they were right, right? They recognized it had structural faults that made it possible for bad data to sip in. The same is valid for LLMs: they have structural faults.

So what is your point? You seem to have placed assumptions there. And broad ones, so that differences between the two things, and complexities, the important details, do not appear.

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#519

Post by namaria »

Animats wrote: post #178
cogman10 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wah, it can't write code like a Senior engineer with 20 years of experience! No, that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. Sure, sometimes it produces useful code. And often, it'll simply call the "doTheHardPart()" method. I've even caught it literally writing the wrong algor…

> inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. Still the elephant in the room. We need an AI technology that can output "don't know" when appropriate. How's that coming along?

So we just need to solve the halting problem in NLP?

Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs

#520

Post by bjornsing »

I’ve been using Claude a lot lately, and I must say I very much disagree.

For example, the other day I was chatting with it about the health risks associated with my high consumption of grown salmon. It then generated a small program to simulate the accumulation of PCB in my body. I could review the program, ask questions about the assumptions, etc. It all seemed very reasonable. A toxicokinetic analysis it called it.

It then struck me how immensely valuable this is to a curious and inquisitive mind. This is essentially my gold standard of intelligence: take a complex question and break it down in a logical way, explaining every step of the reasoning process to me, and be willing to revise the analysis if I point out errors / weaknesses.

Now try that with your doctor. ;)

Can it make mistakes? Sure, but so can your doctor. The main difference is that here the responsibility is clearly on you. If you do not feel comfortable reviewing the reasoning then you shouldn’t trust it.

Post reply on HN