91–100 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Redacting? Is that not just the model using the smudge tool it was given.
Is this not someone being near infinitely obtuse? HN, the only environment in the world where people will scientifically falsify a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of my poetry has clear IT jargon, but it's a very small portion of it ( For some reason, OpenAI models, Gemini (and apparently Grok too), love to latch onto this and obsess over this idea that it's "programming poetry" or "poetry for the IT crowd". Often OpenAI and Gemini try to write the "equations of my poetry" (granted, I do write about a cyclical relationship between thinking, feeling and writing a lot, and…
might also be U shaped memory issue did you try changing the order of your poems to see if it focusses on different ones? maybe it just happened to have those old ones in points it memory was focused at. (ofc its not good but would be an alternative idea to it focussing on IT things/code to produce such results)
It still somewhat affects the way the AI looks at the poems, especially if it has to make lists of the “best”, but it is not a very pronounced effect nowadays. Maybe it gives some preference for earlier and latter poems but not a lot.
Back when I started doing it, these holes in the context were super obvious, just like you described. It would mixup entire periods and also hallucinate or forget about specific sections. That’s precisely why I started randomizing them as part of my experiments.
Nowadays the frontier models are much better and don’t really mix anything up.
GPT-5.6 Sol is the knock out here. Some of those results are really human/charming. The rectangular smudge tool is a weird tool in the first place, but it's cute to see the models try to use it.
I really like the cabin from Sol. It could be an art piece.
And I like how its starry night decided to accentuate the church/steeple in the village backdrop.
Pretty cool how it did these with a scrappy little tool palette. What a fun idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t develop. We should stop anthropomorphizing LLMs. AI labs are improving the ML techniques used to build better models; it’s a big difference.
That's very clearly what they're referring to also, or at least I certainly doubt this would be lost on them, or most anyone here, at this point.
It’s like saying that a new M-Apple chip developed like a child. There is a clear tendency to give human like attributes to LLMs, probably caused by the terms used in ML: training, learning, etc.
A year or so ago I was trying to get llms to make pixel art by asking them to create a 2d array of color codes. I'm no prompt guru but they all failed at anything beyond a basic shape. I tried at many resolutions from 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, and maybe a little larger but basically only then quit small ones were even recognizeable.
I wonder how much better a harness could get for drawing
As I looked through the images I was unimpressed entirely, at first. But, then I started thinking, these look a little... "childish" to me. Childish as in... A newish artist who is drawing a concept rather than light / forms (Which is something artists typically do as they understand drawing more and more). The rose in the vase specifically - some models understood that there was supposed to be shading, reflections,…
What's interesting is that the way in which they're childish is actually extremely human. In fact, one of the ways that you're often taught to draw more realistically is to stop thinking of the concepts as icons you're drawing the outlines of, and instead sort of blur your eyes and see things as they are: hues and values. In other words, become a camera or a printer that has no idea what it's capturing or printing ot…
It felt a bit surreal to see a machines rendition of something that very closely maps to a younger human as they explore + understand more about the world. Scary, even (to me). This was the first time I’ve seen LLM output and thought “wow, maybe it is learning.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this not someone being near infinitely obtuse? HN, the only environment in the world where people will scientifically falsify a joke.
If I saw something I thought resembled a joke I wouldn't have made the comment.
Allow me to explain the theory behind the humor...
Grok's art had heavy use of what strongly resembles a permanent marker with lateral-ish scribbles similar to what one might see when someone is trying to mark something as discarded. Documents, especially those procured by the US government when responding to FOIA requests, contain many 'strike-through' style black marks resembling bold permanent-marker lines, which obfuscate the words they wish the reader to remain ignorant of. In many cases, this is the entire document, especially where unredacted words might otherwise serve in any way to clarify the nature of the FOIA inquiry, i.e. answer the question.
Grok's art, resembled to me, and others potentially appreciating the joke, redactions more than art. In some forms of humor, the presenter of the joke feigns obtuseness, or a mildly self-deprecating, stupid perspective. But the stupidity of the perspective actually reveals a relevant concept, or idea.
Often, such jokes can be deciphered using common sense, or various razors, including both occam and hanlon, the former self-suggesting that the joker is probably not so stupid as to think Grok was really redacting anything, and the latter self-suggesting that there was probably no malice involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like the cabin from Sol. It could be an art piece.
Its rose is also insane. Not just the shading of the flower but its clever use of the smudge tool to soften the background and then soften the vase so it looked more like glass. And I like how its starry night decided to accentuate the church/steeple in the village backdrop. Pretty cool how it did these with a scrappy little tool palette. What a fun idea.