91–100 of 143 posts
Would be fun if they also „cancelled the nullability direction“.. the llms probably would start hallucinating new explanations for what is happening in the code.
The code is entirely wrong. That validates something that's close to a NAPN number but isn't actually a NAPN number. In particular the area code cannot start with 0 nor can the central office code. There are several numbers, like 911, which have special meaning, and cannot appear in either position.
You'd get better results if you went to Stack Overflow and stole the correct answer yourself. Would probably be faster too.
This is why "non technical code writing" is a terrible idea. The underlying concept is explicitly technical. What are we even doing?
The article puts scare quotes around "understand" etc. to try to head off critiques around the lack of precision or scientific language, but I think this is a really good example of where casual use of these terms can get pretty misleading. Because code LLMs have been trained on the syntactic form of the program and not its execution, it's not correct — even if the correlation between variable annotations and request…
I was going to say "so you believe the LLM's don't have the capacity to understand" but then I realized that the precise language would be something like "the presence of photons in this human's retinas in patterns encoding statements about LLM's having understanding correlates to the activation of neuron signaling chains corresponding to, and emission of, muscle activations engaging keyboard switches, which produce…
Certainly many ancient people worshiped celestial objects or crafted idols by their own hands and ascribed to them powers greater than themselves. That doesn't really help in the long run compared to taking personal responsibility for one's own actions and motives, the best interests of their tribe or community, and taking initiative to understand the underlying cause of mysterious phenomena.
They are not reasoning.
The article puts scare quotes around "understand" etc. to try to head off critiques around the lack of precision or scientific language, but I think this is a really good example of where casual use of these terms can get pretty misleading. Because code LLMs have been trained on the syntactic form of the program and not its execution, it's not correct — even if the correlation between variable annotations and request…
The article puts scare quotes around "understand" etc. to try to head off critiques around the lack of precision or scientific language, but I think this is a really good example of where casual use of these terms can get pretty misleading. Because code LLMs have been trained on the syntactic form of the program and not its execution, it's not correct — even if the correlation between variable annotations and request…
We don't really have a clue what they are and aren't capable of. Prior to the LLM-boom, many people – and I include myself in this – thought it'd be impossible to get to the level of capability we have now purely from statistical methods and here we are. If you have a strong theory that proves some bounds on LLM-capability, then please put it forward. In the absence of that, your sceptical attitude is just as sus as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to say "so you believe the LLM's don't have the capacity to understand" but then I realized that the precise language would be something like "the presence of photons in this human's retinas in patterns encoding statements about LLM's having understanding correlates to the activation of neuron signaling chains corresponding to, and emission of, muscle activations engaging keyboard switches, which produce…
This only applies to people who understand how computers and computer programs work, because someone who doesn't externalize their thinking process would never ascribe human elements of consciousness to inanimate materials. Certainly many ancient people worshiped celestial objects or crafted idols by their own hands and ascribed to them powers greater than themselves. That doesn't really help in the long run compared…
The article puts scare quotes around "understand" etc. to try to head off critiques around the lack of precision or scientific language, but I think this is a really good example of where casual use of these terms can get pretty misleading. Because code LLMs have been trained on the syntactic form of the program and not its execution, it's not correct — even if the correlation between variable annotations and request…
I was going to say "so you believe the LLM's don't have the capacity to understand" but then I realized that the precise language would be something like "the presence of photons in this human's retinas in patterns encoding statements about LLM's having understanding correlates to the activation of neuron signaling chains corresponding to, and emission of, muscle activations engaging keyboard switches, which produce…
I would go much further than this; but this is a de minimus criteria that the LLM already fails.
What zealots eventually discover is that they can hold their "fanatical proposition" fixed in the face of all opposition to the contrary, by tearing down the whole edifice of science, knowledge, and reality itself.
If you wish to assert, against any reasonable thought, that the sky is a pink dome you can do so -- first that our eyes are broken, and then, eventually that we live in some paranoid "philosophical abyss" carefully constructed to permit your paranoia.
This abursidty is exhausting, and I'd wish one day to find fanatics who'd realise it quickly and abate it -- but alas, I have never.
If you find yourself hollowing-out the meaning of words to the point of making no distinctions, denying reality to reality itself, and otherwise arriving at a "philosophical abyss" be aware that it is your cherished propositions which are the maddness and nothing else.
Here: no, the LLM does not understand. Yes, we do. It is your job to begin from reasonable premises and abduce reasonable theories. If you do not, you will not.
Once LLMs fully understand nullability, they will cease to use that. Tony Hoare called it "a billion-dollar mistake" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Hoare#Apologies_and_retra... ), Rust had made core design choices precisely to avoid this mistake. In practical AI-assisted coding in TypeScript I have found that it is good to add in Cursor Rules to avoid anything nullable, unless it is a well-designed choice. In m…
I don’t get the problem with null values as long as you can statically reason about them which wasn’t even the case in Java where you had to always do runtime null-guards before access. But in Typescript, who cares? You’d be forced to handle null the same way you’d be forced to handle Maybe = None | Just except with extra, unidiomatic ceremony in the latter case.
Maybe = None | Just