541–550 of 828 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anti cancer diet absolutely works if you want to reduce the odds of getting cancer. It probably even works to slow cancer compared to the average American diet. Will it stop and reverse a cancer? Probably not.
How much does it 'reduce the odds'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know? its literally non-deterministic.
Most (all?) AI models I work with are literally deterministic. If you give it the same exact input, you get the same exact output every single time. What most people call “non-deterministic” in AI is that one of those inputs is a _seed_ that is sourced from a PRNG because getting a different answer every time is considered a feature for most use cases. Edit: I’m trying to imagine how you could get a non-deterministic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Learning something online 5 years ago often involved trawling incorrect, outdated or hostile content and attempting to piece together mental models without the chance to receive immediate feedback on intuition or ask follow up questions. This is leaps and bounds ahead of that experience. But now, you're wondering if the answer the AI gave you is correct or something it hallucinated. Every time I find myself putting…
What exactly did 2025 AI hallucinate for you? The last time I've seen a hallucination from these things was a year ago. For questions that a kid or a student is going to answer im not sure any reasonable person should be worried about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few weeks ago I was asking an LLM to offer anti-heliocentric arguments, from the perspective of an intelligent scientist. Although it initially started with what was almost a parody of writing from that period, with some prompting I got it to generate a strong rendition of anti-heliocentric arguments. (On the other hand, it's very hard to get them to do it for topics that are currently politically charged. Less so…
What were its arguments? Do you have enough of an understanding of astronomy to know whether it actually made good arguments that are grounded in scientific understanding, or did it just write persuasively in a way that looks convincing to a layman? > I've had success getting it to offer the Carthaginian perspective in the Punic Wars. This is not surprising to me. Historians have long studied Carthage, and there are…
The most compelling reason at the time to reject heliocentrism was the (lack of) parallax of stars. The only response that the heliocentrists had was that the stars must be implausibly far away. Hundreds of billions of times further away than the moon is--and they knew the moon itself is already pretty far from us-- which is a pretty radical, even insane, idea. There's also the point that the original Copernican heliocentric model had ad hoc epicycles just as the Ptolemaic one did, without any real increase in accuracy.
Strictly speaking, the breakdown here would be less a lack of understanding of contemporary physics, and more about whether I knew enough about the minutia of historical astronomers' disputes to know if the LLM was accurately representing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Learning something online 5 years ago often involved trawling incorrect, outdated or hostile content and attempting to piece together mental models without the chance to receive immediate feedback on intuition or ask follow up questions. This is leaps and bounds ahead of that experience. But now, you're wondering if the answer the AI gave you is correct or something it hallucinated. Every time I find myself putting…
What exactly did 2025 AI hallucinate for you? The last time I've seen a hallucination from these things was a year ago. For questions that a kid or a student is going to answer im not sure any reasonable person should be worried about this.
Sure, Joe Average who's using it to look smart in Reddit or HN arguments or to find out how to install a mod for their favorite game isn't gonna notice anymore, because it's much more plausible much more often than two years ago, but if you're asking it things that aren't trivially easy for you to verify, you have no way of telling how frequently it hallucinates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If LLMs of today's quality were what was initially introduced, nobody would even know what your rebuttals are even about. So "risk of hallucination" as a rebuttal to anybody admitting to relying on AI is just not insightful. like, yeah ok we all heard of that and aren't changing our habits at all. Most of our teachers and books said objectively incorrect things too, and we are all carrying factually questionable know…
Agree, "hallucination" as an argument to not use LLMs for curiosity and other non-important situations is starting to seem more and more like tech luddism, similar to the people who told you to not read Wikipedia 5+ years after the rest of us realized it is a really useful resource despite occasional inaccuracies.
Meanwhile in LLM-land, if an expert five thousand miles a way asked the same question you did last month, and noticed an error... it ain't getting fixed. LLMs get RL'd into things that look plausible for out-of-distribution questions. Not things that are correct. Looking plausible but non-factual is in some ways more insidious than a stupid-looking hallucination.
An underrated quality of LLMs as study partner is that you can ask "stupid" questions without fear of embarrassment. Adding in a mode that doesn't just dump an answer but works to take you through the material step-by-step is magical. A tireless, capable, well-versed assistant on call 24/7 is an autodidact's dream. I'm puzzled (but not surprised) by the standard HN resistance & skepticism. Learning something online 5…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please check this excellent LLM-RAG AI-driven course assistant at UIUC for an example of university course [1]. It provide citations and references mainly for the course notes so the students can verify the answers and further study the course materials. [1] AI-driven chat assistant for ECE 120 course at UIUC (only 1 comment by the website creator): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41431164
Given the propensity of LLMs to hallucinate references, I'm not sure that really solves anything
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you know what, just google books about some topic and get a list of... real books recommended by people with names and reputations? Its truly incredible!
And now we get all the way back to the OP, and having so little knowledge on the subject that you don't know what to Google, or which forums are trustworthy for that topic. And so the wheel turns...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you supposed to spot errors if you don't know the material? You're telling people to be experts before they know anything.
> How are you supposed to spot errors if you don't know the material? By noticing that something is not adding up at a certain point. If you rely on an incorrect answer, further material will clash with it eventually one way or another in a lot of areas, as things are typically built one on top of another (assuming we are talking more about math/cs/sciences/music theory/etc., and not something like history). At that…