571–580 of 998 posts
Yup, also asked the latest ChatGPT model about washing my bicycle. It for some reason suggested that I walk the bicycle to the wash, since cycling 100m to get there would be "pointless".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so you need to tell them the specifics That is the entire point, right? Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. You would not start with "The car is functional. The tank is filled with gas. I have my keys." As soon as we are required to do that for the model to any extend that is a problem and not a detail (regardless that those of us, who are familiar with the matter, do bu…
> Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. The first time I read that question I got confused: what kind of question is that? Why is it being asked? It should be obvious that you need your car to wash it. The fact that it is being asked in my mind implies that there is an additional factor/complication to make asking it worthwhile, but I have no idea what. Is the car already at…
You _could_ say humans output similar answers to questions, but I think that is being intellectually dishonest. Context, experience, observation, objectivity, and actual intelligence is clearly important and not something the LLM has.
It is increasingly frustrating to me why we cannot just use these tools for what they are good for. We have, yet again, allowed big tech to go balls deep into ham-fisting this technology irresponsibly into every facet of our lives the name of capital. Let us not even go into the finances of this shitshow.
I've used LLMs enough that I have a good sense of their _edges_ of intelligence. I had assumed that reasoning models should easily be able to answer this correctly. And indeed, Sonnet and Opus 4.5 (medium reasoning) say the following: Sonnet: Drive - you need to bring your car to the car wash to get it washed! Opus: You'll need to drive — you have to bring the car to the car wash to get it washed! Gemini 3 Pro (mediu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you do understand the "penalising" or as the ML scientific community likes to call it - "adjusting the weights downwards" - is part of setting up the evaluation functions, for gasp - calculating the next most likely tokens, or to be more precise, tokens with the highest possible probability? You are effectively proving my point, perhaps in a bit hand-wavy fashion, that nevertheless still can be translated into…
You do understand that the mechanism through which an auto-regressive transformer works (predicting one token at a time) is completely unrelated to how a model with that architecture behaves or how it's trained, right? You can have both: - An LLM that works through completely different mechanisms, like predicting masked words, predicting the previous word, or predicting several words at a time. - A normal traditional…
Well it does - it tells me it is utterly un-reliable, because it does not understand anything. It just merely goes on, shitting out a nice pile of tokens that placed one after another kind of look like coherent sentences but make no sense, like "you should absolutely go on foot to the car wash". A completely logical culmination of Bill Gates' idiotic "Content is King" proclamation of 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be anthropomorphizing the model, here. Models don’t have “assumptions”; the problem is contrived and most likely there haven’t been many conversations on the internet about what to do when the car wash is really close to you (because it’s obvious to us). The training data for this problem is sparse.
I may be missing something, but this is the exact point I thought I was making as well. The training data for questions about walking or driving to car washes is very sparse; and training data for questions about walking or driving based on distance is overwhelmingly larger. So, the stat model has its output dominated by the length-of-trip analysis, while the fact that the destination is "car wash" only affects small…
Like for instance, think chess engines with AI, they can train themselves simply by playing many many games, the "world simulation" with those is the classic chess engine architecture but it uses the positional weights produced by the neural network, so says gemini anyways:
"ai chess engine architecture"
"Modern AI chess engines (e.g., Lc0, Stockfish) use a hybrid architecture combining deep neural networks for positional evaluation with advanced search algorithms like Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) or alpha-beta pruning. They feature three core components: a neural network (often CNN-based) that analyzes board patterns (matrices) to evaluate positions, a search engine that explores move possibilities, and a Universal Chess Interface (UCI) for communication."
So with no model of the world to play with, I'm thinking the chatbot llms can only go with probabilities or what matches the prompt best in the crazy dimensional thing that goes on inside the neural networks. If it had access to a simple world of cars and car washes, it could run a simulation and rank it appropriately, and also could possibly infer through either simulation or training from those simulations that if you are washing a car, the operation will fail if the car is not present. I really like this car wash trick question lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is the entire point, right? Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. Maybe in the distant future we'll realize that the most reliable way to prompting LLMs are by using a structured language that eliminates ambiguity, it will probably be rather unnatural and take some time to learn. But this will only happen after the last programmer has died and no-one will remember pro…
A structured language without ambiguity is not, in general, how people think or express themselves. In order for a model to be good at interfacing with humans, it needs to adapt to our quirks. Convincing all of human history and psychology to reorganize itself in order to better service ai cannot possibly be a real solution. Unfortunately, the solution is likely going to be further interconnectivity, so the model can…
I think there's a substantial subset of tech companies and honestly tech people who disagree. Not openly, but in the sense of 'the purpose of a system is what it does'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say, the proper response to this question is not "walk, blablablah" but rather "What do you mean? You need to drive your car to have it washed. Did I miss anything?"
Yes, this is what irks me about all the chatbots, and the chat interface as a whole. It is a chat-like UX without a chat-like experience. Like you are talking to a loquacious autist about their favorite topic every time. Just ask me a clarifying question before going into your huge pitch. Chats are a back & forth. You don’t need to give me a response 10x longer than my initial question. Etc
I've used LLMs enough that I have a good sense of their _edges_ of intelligence. I had assumed that reasoning models should easily be able to answer this correctly. And indeed, Sonnet and Opus 4.5 (medium reasoning) say the following: Sonnet: Drive - you need to bring your car to the car wash to get it washed! Opus: You'll need to drive — you have to bring the car to the car wash to get it washed! Gemini 3 Pro (mediu…
> so you need to tell them the specifics That is the entire point, right? Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. You would not start with "The car is functional. The tank is filled with gas. I have my keys." As soon as we are required to do that for the model to any extend that is a problem and not a detail (regardless that those of us, who are familiar with the matter, do bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so you need to tell them the specifics That is the entire point, right? Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. You would not start with "The car is functional. The tank is filled with gas. I have my keys." As soon as we are required to do that for the model to any extend that is a problem and not a detail (regardless that those of us, who are familiar with the matter, do bu…
> That is the entire point, right? Us having to specify things that we would never specify when talking to a human. Maybe in the distant future we'll realize that the most reliable way to prompting LLMs are by using a structured language that eliminates ambiguity, it will probably be rather unnatural and take some time to learn. But this will only happen after the last programmer has died and no-one will remember pro…
You see people complaining about LLM ability, and then you see their prompt, and it's the 2006 equivalent of googling "I need to know where I can go for getting the fastest service for car washes in Toronto that does wheel washing too"