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

What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

agrillo.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#81

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

chungusamongus wrote: post #55
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all arguments can be evaluated rigorously. Life is too short. They will be filtered on heuristics. No choice. This text was obviously randomly sampled from a popular, off the shelf model. You will have to accept that wise audiences will clock it at a glance, see that no person wrote it, and pass.

It says it was written by deepseek v4. You are making it sound like they're being deceptive. Life is too short yet you waste it complaining about things like this. I dont think you're wise. Youre provincial.

It doesn’t matter which model it was sampled from. In any case, time isn’t fungible. I consider censuring it substantially more valuable use of time than reading it. And it’s definitely more pleasurable than reading the same verbal tics over and over again because some hustler can’t be bothered to edit their story before sending it out. If you expect to dump an unedited draft from a text sampler, you’re delusional. (Calling you delusional is also more pleasurable, and a more valuable use of time, than reading verbal tics.)

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#82

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

chungusamongus wrote: post #58
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you think it’s just this story? The cost of reading slop is infinity. No thanks.

That's circular reasoning

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#83

Post by bookofjoe »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #82
chungusamongus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's circular reasoning

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it.

That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#84

Post by chungusamongus »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #82
chungusamongus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's circular reasoning

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

It is circular. The conclusion of your argument is included in the premises. Textbook begging the question, which is circular reasoning.

"Slop" existed before AI. Just because LLMs were involved in the writing of a text does not make it inherently "slop." You're just lazy.

Everyday is a gift, and yet you waste it getting weirdly defensive about your choices? Someone who is secure about this sort of thing doesn't feel the need to explain themselves.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#85

Post by chungusamongus »

bookofjoe wrote: post #83
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

Really? It just seems aggressively stupid.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#86

Post by bookofjoe »

chungusamongus wrote: post #85
bookofjoe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

Really? It just seems aggressively stupid.

You're right. I should've specified "sentiment frequently seen here."

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#87

Post by FreakLegion »

chungusamongus wrote: post #80
FreakLegion wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The onus is always on the writer. No one is owed an audience.

That's not what I said. Do you have trouble reading? Are you subliterate or just lazy?

*> That's not what I said.

So close to spotting the mistake you made in your response to skippyfish, yet so far!

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#88

Post by chungusamongus »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #81
chungusamongus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says it was written by deepseek v4. You are making it sound like they're being deceptive. Life is too short yet you waste it complaining about things like this. I dont think you're wise. Youre provincial.

It doesn’t matter which model it was sampled from. In any case, time isn’t fungible. I consider censuring it substantially more valuable use of time than reading it. And it’s definitely more pleasurable than reading the same verbal tics over and over again because some hustler can’t be bothered to edit their story before sending it out. If you expect to dump an unedited draft from a text sampler, you’re delusional. (…

But You've spent so much more time complaining and rationalizing your biases than it would take to simply read the story.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#89

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

chungusamongus wrote: post #88
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter which model it was sampled from. In any case, time isn’t fungible. I consider censuring it substantially more valuable use of time than reading it. And it’s definitely more pleasurable than reading the same verbal tics over and over again because some hustler can’t be bothered to edit their story before sending it out. If you expect to dump an unedited draft from a text sampler, you’re delusional. (…

But You've spent so much more time complaining and rationalizing your biases than it would take to simply read the story.

Correct. Ideal. The story deserves zero time. In this way, I am in agreement with its publisher.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#90

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

bookofjoe wrote: post #83
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

Thanks!
Post reply on HN