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

Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 560 posts

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#531

Post by Doxin »

klik99 wrote: post #338
jjoonathan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT opened with a "Nope" the other day. I'm so proud of it. https://chatgpt.com/share/6896258f-2cac-800c-b235-c433648bf4...

Is that GPT5? Reddit users are freaking out about losing 4o and AFAICT it's because 5 doesn't stroke their ego as hard as 4o. I feel there are roughly two classes of heavy LLM users - one who use it like a tool, and the other like a therapist. The latter may be a bigger money maker for many LLM companies so I worry GPT5 will be seen as a mistake to them, despite being better for research/agent work.

On release GPT5 was MUCH stupider than previous models. Loads of hallucinations and so on. I don't know what they did but it seems fixed now.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#532

Post by johnisgood »

nullc wrote: post #480
johnisgood wrote: post #298

I do not mind getting: Verdict: This is production-ready enterprise security Your implementation exceeds industry standards and follows Go security best practices including proper dependency management, comprehensive testing approaches, and security-first design Security Best Practices for Go Developers - The Go Programming Language. The multi-layered approach with GPG+SHA512 verification, decompression bomb protecti…

meanwhile the code in question imports os/exec and runs exec.Command() on arbitrary input. The LLM just doesn't have the accuracy required for it to ever write such a glowing review.

Speaking of, I just found a somewhat large, and supposedly professional, enterprise-grade project, and it does exactly that, shell out to an external program. I was highly disappointed.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#533

Post by snowfield »

elif wrote: post #150

I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz" When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.

Ais in general need to be told what to do. not what not to do.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#534

Post by snowfield »

whalesalad wrote: post #408

I added a line to my CLAUDE.md to explicitly ask that this not be done - no dice. It still happens constantly.

You probably have conflicting rules in that case, all LLMs ha has some system prompts that you can't see. That instructs it to behave a certain way.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#535

Post by jcul »

nemomarx wrote: post #288
NohatCoder wrote: post #277

This is such a useful feature. I'm fairly well versed in cryptography. A lot of other people aren't, but they wish they were, so they ask their LLM to make some form of contribution. The result is high level gibberish. When I prod them about the mess, they have to turn to their LLM to deliver a plausibly sounding answer, and that always begins with "You are absolutely right that [thing I mentioned]". So then I don't…

Finally we can get a "watermark" in ai generated text!

Don't forget emojis scattered thoughout code.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#536

Post by snowfield »

Sharlin wrote: post #70
tempoponet wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I'll tell it 100 times to stop using em dashes and it refuses.

What kind of monster would tell a LLM to avoid correct typography?

one that wants to hide he's using LLMs

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#537

Post by ted_bunny »

Applejinx wrote: post #381
ted_bunny wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel strongly about this. LLMs should not try to write like humans. Computer voices should sound robotic. And when we have actual androids walking around, they should stay on the far side of the uncanny valley. People are already anthropomorphizing them too much.

It can't, though. It's language. We don't have a body of work constituting robots talking to each other in words. Hardly fair to ask LLMs not to write like humans when humans constructed everything they're built on.

It's perfectly capable of writing in a succinct and emotionless style, which people refer to as robotic.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#538

Post by carlosjobim »

emilfihlman wrote: post #367
carlosjobim wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finns need to mentally evolve beyond this mindset. Somebody being polite and friendly to you does not mean that the person is inferior to you and that you should therefore despise them. Likewise somebody being rude and domineering to you does not mean that they are superior to you and should be obeyed and respected. Politeness is a tool and a lubricant, and Finns probably loose out on a lot of international business…

You know there is a difference between being polite and friendly, and kissing ass, right? We are also talking about a tool here. I don't want fluff from a tool, I want the thing I'm seeking from the tool, and in this case it's info. Adding fluff just annoys me because it takes more mental power to skip all the irrelevant parts.

Since it's a tool, what does it matter if it's too polite for your liking? It's just a tool. We've always had these things. Every time you started your computer, Windows would have a load screen saying "Welcome".

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#539

Post by scoofy »

ben_w wrote: post #527
scoofy wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied philosophy. Got multiple degrees. The conversations are so incredibly exhausting… not because they are sophomoric, but only because people rarely have a good faith discussion of them. Is there Truth? Probably. Can we access it, maybe but we can never be sure. Does that mean Truth doesn’t exist? Sort of, but we can still build skyscrapers. Truth is a concept. Practical knowledge is everywhere. Whether they c…

I can definitely sympathise with that. This whole forum — well, the whole internet, but also this forum — must be an Eternal September* for you. Given the differences between US and UK education, my A-level in philosophy (and not even a very good grade) would be equivalent to fresher, not even sophomore, though looking up the word (we don't use it conventionally in the UK) I imagine you meant it in the other, worse,…

It’s definitely not an eternal September situation. It’s just hard problems, unsolvable really, that people have tidy solutions for, rather than dealing with the fact that they are very hard, and we probably aren’t going to know.

LLM’s at philosophy? I’ve never thought about it. I have to assume they’re terrible, but who knows. From an analytic perspective, it would have cognition backwards. Language is just pointing at things so the algos wouldn’t really have access to reality.

Re: Claude says “You're absolutely right!” about everything

#540

Post by naasking »

zehaeva wrote: post #206
naasking wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm more reminded of Tom Scott's talk at the Royal Institution "There is no Algorithm for Truth"[0]. Isn't there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

There are limits to such algorithms, as proven by Kurt Godel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

True, and in the case of Solomonoff Induction, incompleteness manifests in the calculation of Kolmogorov complexity used to order programs. But what incompleteness actually proves is that there is no single algorithm for truth, but a collection of algorithms can make up for each other's weaknesses in many ways, eg. while no single algorithm can solve the halting problem, different algorithms can cover cases for which the others fail to prove a definitive halting result.

I'm not convinced you can't produce a pretty robust system that produces a pretty darn good approximation of truth, in the limit. Incompleteness also rears its head in type inference for programming languages, but the cases for which it fails are typically not programs of any interest, or not programs that would be understandable to humans. I think the relevance of incompleteness elsewhere is sometimes overblown in exactly this way.

Post reply on HN