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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by alpaca128 »

qwertox wrote: post #625
sussmannbaka wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t even argue that they might get useful at some point, but when I point a mouse at a button and press the button it usually results in a reliable action. When I use the LLM (I have so far tried: Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Mistral) it does something but that something usually isn’t what I want (~the linked tweet). Prompting, studying and understanding the result and then cleaning up the mess for the low price of…

These are the beginnings and it will only improve. The premise is "I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs", which I just can't share.

When the mouse and GUI was invented nobody needed to say "just wait a couple years for it to improve and you'll understand why it's useful, until then please give me money". The benefits are immediately obvious and improve the experience for practically every computer user.

LLMs are very useful for some (mostly linguistic) tasks, but the areas where they're actually reliable enough to provide more value than just doing it yourself are narrow. But companies really need this tech to be profitable and so they try to make people use it for as many things as possible and shove it in everyone's face[0] in hopes that someone finds a use-case where the benefits are indeed immediately obvious and revolutionary.

[0] For example my dad's new Android phone by default opens a Gemini AI assistant when you hold the power button and it took me minutes of googling to figure out how to make it turn off the damn thing. Whoever at Google thought that this would make people like AI more is in the wrong profession.

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

#642

Post by tessellated »

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…

Same as reading books, Internet, Wikipedia, working towards/keeping your health and fitness, etc...

The quote about books being a mirror reflecting genius or idiocy seems to apply.

I see LLMs a kind of hyper-keyboard. Speeding up typing AND structuring content, completing thoughts, and inspiring ideas.

Unlike a regular keyboard, an LLM transforms input contextually. One no longer merely types but orchestrates concepts and modulates language, almost like music.

Yet mastery is key. Just as a pianist turns keystrokes into a symphony through skill, a true virtuoso wields LLMs not as a crutch but as an amplifier of thought.

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

#643

Post by WickyNilliams »

lnenad wrote: post #611
hansmayer wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Sam Altman literally saying on twitter "We know how to build AGI now"? That close enough?

How many examples of CEOs writing shit like that can you name? I can name more than one. Elon's been saying that camera driven level 5 autonomous driving will be ready in 2021. Did you believe him?

You went from "they're not saying it" to "and you believe them when they say it??" Pretty quickly

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

#645

Post by hatefulmoron »

jibal wrote: post #626
somenameforme wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly because of how they were initially marketed. In an effort to drive hype 'we' were promised the world. Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence? In reality Bard, let alone whatever early version he was using, is about as sentient as my left asscheek. OpenAI did similar things by focusing to the point of absurdity on 'safety'…

> Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence? That's not what happened. Google stomped hard on Lemoine, saying clearly that he was wrong about LaMDA being sentient ... and then they fired him for leaking the transcripts. Your whole argument here is based on false information and faulty logic.

I think you're missing the point. He's pointing out what the atmosphere was/is around LLMs in these discussions, and how that impacts stories like with Lemoine.

I mean, you're right that he's silly and Google didn't want to be part of it, but it was (and is?) taken seriously that: LLMs are nascent AGI, companies are pouring money to get there first, we might be a year or two away. Take these as true, it's at least possible that Google might have something chained up in their basement.

In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way. At the time, it could be spun as just further evidence: they're silencing him because he's right. Could it have created such hysteria and silliness if the environment hadn't been so poisoned by the talk of imminent AGI/sentience?

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

#646

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

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…

The technology is not just less than superintelligence, for many applications it is less than prior forms of intelligence like traditional search and Stack Exchange, which were easily accessible 3 years ago and are in the process of being displaced by LLMs. I find that outcome unimpressive.

And this Tweeter's complaints do not sound like a demand for superintelligence. They sound like a demand for something far more basic than the hype has been promising for years now. - "They continue to fabricate links, references, and quotes, like they did from day one." - "I ask them to give me a source for an alleged quote, I click on the link, it returns a 404 error." (Why have these companies not manually engineered out a problem like this by now? Just do a check to make sure links are real. That's pretty unimpressive to me.) - "They reference a scientific publication, I look it up, it doesn't exist." - "I have tried Gemini, and actually it was even worse in that it frequently refuses to even search for a source and instead gives me instructions for how to do it myself." - "I also use them for quick estimates for orders of magnitude and they get them wrong all the time. " - "Yesterday I uploaded a paper to GPT to ask it to write a summary and it told me the paper is from 2023, when the header of the PDF clearly says it's from 2025. "

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

#647

Post by chimprich »

somenameforme wrote: post #554
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…

It's mostly because of how they were initially marketed. In an effort to drive hype 'we' were promised the world. Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence? In reality Bard, let alone whatever early version he was using, is about as sentient as my left asscheek. OpenAI did similar things by focusing to the point of absurdity on 'safety'…

> Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence?

I presume you are referring to this Google engineer, who was sacked for making the claim. Hardly an example of AI companies overhyping the tech; precisely the opposite, in fact. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62275326

It seems to be a common human hallucination to imagine that large organisations are conspiring against us.

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

#648

Post by TeMPOraL »

re-thc wrote: post #620
lnenad wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? How many things from today when brought back into 2010 would make the person using it make it f…

> Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? Lots e.g. vacuum cleaners. > But at no point in history could you talk to your phone You could always "talk" to your phone just like you could "talk" to a parrot or a dog. What does that even mean? If we're talking about LLMs, I still haven't been able to have a real conversation with 1. There's too mu…

> If we're talking about LLMs, I still haven't been able to have a real conversation with 1. There's too much of a lag to feel like a conversation

Imagine the LLM is halfway through its journey to the Moon, and mentally correct for ~1.5 seconds of light lag.

> and often doesn't reply with anything related.

Use better microphone, or stop mumbling.

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

#649

Post by aetherson »

NoGravitas wrote: post #316
aetherson wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know at least two attorneys who use LLMs productively. As with all LLM usage right now, it's a tool and not fit for every purpose. But it has legit uses for some attorney tasks.

I frequently see news stories where attorneys get in trouble for using LLMs, because they cite hallucinated case law (e.g.). If they didn't get caught, that would look the same as using them "productively".

The uses that they cited to me were "additional pair of eyes in reviewing contracts," and, "deep research to get started on providing a detailed overview of a legal topic."

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

#650

Post by noufalibrahim »

nottorp wrote: post #585
noufalibrahim wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much as i agree with the point about overhyping from companies, I'd be more sympathetic to this point of view if she acknowledged the merits of the technology. Yes, it hallucinates and if you replace your brain with one of these things, you won't last too long. However, it can do things which, in the hands of someone experienced, are very empowering. And it doesn't take an expert to see the potential. As it stands, i…

If it works for you... I use LLMs. They're somewhat useful if you're on a non niche problem. They're also useful instead of search engines, but that's because search has been entshittified more than because a LLM is better. However 90% of the marketing material about them is simply disgusting. The bigwigs sound like they're spreading a new religion, and most enthusiasts sound like they're new converts to some sect. I…

I completely agree about the marketing material. I'm not sure about 90% but that's not something I have a strong opinion on. The stream from the bigwigs is the same song being played in a different tune and I'm inoculated to it.

I'm not marketing it. I'm not a marketer. I'm a developer trying to create an informed opinion on its utility and the marketing speak you criticize is far away from the truth.

The problem is this notion that it's just completely bullshit. The way it's worded irks me. "I genuinely don't understand...". It's quite easy to see the utility and acknowledging that doesn't, in any way, detract from valid criticisms of the technology and the people who peddle.

Post reply on HN