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

On the non-use of AI in my writing process

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#71

Post by bryanrasmussen »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #23
ainch wrote: post #2

> It would be foolish to deny the effectiveness of image recognizers based on generalized adversarial networks (GANs), the key neural network technology underlying LLMs I could be misreading this, but I hope the author doesn't think GANs are used in LLMs. They are cool, though.

He hallucinated. This is how you verify non AI nowadays. AI is so good that if you see an hallucination as obviously wrong like this one it’s a sign it’s written by a human.

sorry but I see incorrect AI responses almost every day in things I query on Google, generally because I am often querying on something I am an expert in and I just want a linking source. There will be a good link in the result, generally, but the AI almost always messes up some elemental fact, sometimes it is because the AI has "misunderstood" what I asked which is reasonable, but most of the time the result shows that it has "understood" what I said but there will be a statement of fact that is just wrong.

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#72

Post by red75prime »

magicalist wrote: post #59
andy99 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unfortunate - he’s an author, it would have been fine to stick with an authors perspective that LLMs can’t write (which is true), as well as the copyright stuff (which I don’t agree with but he certainly has standing to give an opinion on). But he’s made the error of trying to come at it from a technical perspective, when he clearly knows nothing about that side of things, which discredits the rest.

> But he’s made the error of trying to come at it from a technical perspective Huh? That quote appears to be the entirety of the "technical perspective" of the post and is an aside from his larger points that you have blessed as "fine". Literally nothing in the rest of the post relies on that incorrect statement. Let me quibble with what is discredited here, given the entirety of your point is built upon an error.

Here's another technical point:

> They're word-association mechanisms with no embodiment and no way to associate the text vectors they manipulate with real-world phenomena.

This is wrong too. RLVR grounds foundational models in reality.

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#73

Post by drdaeman »

bonoboTP wrote: post #19
Apocryphon wrote: post #4

From the comments: > I will concede that using LLMs in software development is a different category from fiction, insofar as the languages and APIs are much smaller and more tightly constrained and in software you actively don't want long-range dependencies between elements (something you often do want in fiction, i.e. put a gun on the mantlepiece in part 1 of the book, pull the trigger in part 3).

It can definitely plan such things. Because agentic systems don't have to output a book all at once. The mainstream still lives 1-2 years in the past. Agents can plan out a narrative draft, write it out section by section, maybe out of order, then tweak it, plant clues if it wants to, then trigger it in another chapter file etc. Then read the whole thing, reconsider, etc. It can iterate. I'm not saying it will be gre…

> Would you want the machine to write literature if, hypothetically it could write indistinguishably from any great writer? I guess not.

I sure would. If you want a religious tone to it… It would be a signal suggesting that the human spirit(tm) had finally transcended.

If humans can someday build a machine that can truly carry a (trans)human mind, and let some future souls live unconstrained by all the quirks and limitations of our preexisting biology, exercising more control of their own lives - that’d be wonderful.

I obviously have no idea wherever language models can lead to such dream, of would be a dead end.

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#74

Post by dgellow »

user43928 wrote: post #70
bonoboTP wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare. It's mostly, "but it will never be able to do X" (when it can already do X), or it uses too much water (while having no idea or reference point to what amount is much), or other climate things, or non-progressive bias, or copyright (when training is fair use) etc. Just be upfront. 1) It threatens your livelihood that people can get the thing done faster and cheaper than what they used to pay you, 2) our re…

I think it is true that people who obviously dislike AI for ideological reasons often lead with ecological concerns or doubt about the capabilities, leading to an unproductive discussion.

Have you considered engaging on those ecological concerns? There is quite a lot to dig into and can be pretty interesting. For example, try to project how much electricity will be needed to power all the datacenters in construction, then compare that to the existing grid and infra, then figure out the cooling capacity. If done well you will see that we have a pretty massive resource problem here

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#75

Post by shimman »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #62
FL33TW00D wrote: post #10

Crazy how forward thinking this guy was in 2005 vs today.

Crazy to assume that an individual of vision has so thoroughly dropped the plot simply because their position is at odds with tech industry orthodoxy. If anything that should be an indication to more closely examine your assumptions.

Anyone that is against American big tech immediately makes me sympathetic to their side. They'd have to do a lot wrong to destroy such good will.

Re: On the non-use of AI in my writing process

#76

Post by amanaplanacanal »

bananaflag wrote: post #8
sxp wrote: post #7

While Stross is currently a neo-Luddite who doesn't believe in the Singularity, his book Accelerando is probably the best work of Singularitarian fiction ever written. It was written in the 2000s, starts in the 2010s, and covers the various decades of this century. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to know how weird this century will be. It's also available for free online. [1] It's one of my favorite books…

He had already disappointed me in 2011 with this post https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/06/reality...

Why is that disappointing? Everything he said there seems perfectly reasonable.
Post reply on HN