941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
err , "hallucinate" is the euphemism you're looking for. ;)
I don't like the use of hallucinate. It implies that LLM have some kind of model of reality and some times get confused. They don't have any kind of model of anything, they cannot "hallucinate", they can only output wrong results.
that "hallucinate" term is a marketing gimmick to make it seem to the gullible that this "AI" (i.e. LLMs) can actually think, which is flat out BS.
as many others have said here on hn, those who stand to benefit a lot from this are the ones promoting this bullcrap idea (that they (LLMs) are intelligent).
greater fool theory.
picks and shovels.
etc.
In detective or murder novels, the cliche is "look for the woman".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherchez_la_femme
in this case, "follow the money" is the translation, i.e. who really benefits (the investors and founders, the few), as opposed to who is grandly proclaimed to be the beneficiary (us, the many).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
err , "hallucinate" is the euphemism you're looking for. ;)
I don't like the use of hallucinate. It implies that LLM have some kind of model of reality and some times get confused. They don't have any kind of model of anything, they cannot "hallucinate", they can only output wrong results.
it's even more fundamental than that.
even if they had any model, they would not be able to think.
thinking requires consciousness. only humans and some animals have it. maybe plants too.
machines? no way, jose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one is stating "we've replaced X% of our workforce with AI" Even if that's been happening, I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it. In today's social climate claiming to replace humans with AI would attract the wrong kind of attention from politicians (during an election year) and from the public in general. This would be even more unwise to admit for a company like Google who's an "AI producer".…
> and from the public in general Don't think the public will be that concerned about people in Google's salary bracket losing their jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public might though be concerned that if they are being replaced, many in other positions at other companies will soon be replaced as well.
That’s not how the mind works. People cheered when Elon fired 80% of the Twitter staff. No one cares when people with high paying jobs suffer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one is stating "we've replaced X% of our workforce with AI" Even if that's been happening, I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it. In today's social climate claiming to replace humans with AI would attract the wrong kind of attention from politicians (during an election year) and from the public in general. This would be even more unwise to admit for a company like Google who's an "AI producer".…
> I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it. Would it be? Do they care? Sam Altman's been talking about how GenAI could break capitalism (maybe not the exact quote, but something similar), and these companies have been pushing out GenAI products that could obviously and easily be used to fake photographic or video evidence of things that have occurred in the real world. Elon's obsessed with making an AI…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, but it can't be that, no reason to think llms can count brackets needing a close any more than they can count words.
LLMs can count words (and letters) just fine if you train them to do so. Consider the fact that GPT-4 can generate valid XML (meaning balanced tags, quotes etc) in base64-encoded form. Without CoT, just direct output.
I don't know what model Copilot uses these days, but it constantly makes bracket mistakes in Python.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti. The problem is finding people to do it with who care enough to think rigorously about what they're going to do before they start doing it. There's this bizarre misconception popular among bigtech managers that there's some tunable tradeoff bet…
Agreed. The way I explain this to managers is that software development is unlike most work. If I'm making widgets and I fuck up, that widget goes out the door never to be seen again. But in software, today's outputs are tomorrow's raw materials. You can trade quality for speed in the very short term at the cost of future productivity, so you're really trading speed for speed. I should add, though, that one can do th…
This is an important point. I don't remember where I read it, but someone said something similar about taking a loss on your first few customers as an early stage startup--basically, the idea is you're buying information about how well or poorly your product meets a need.
Where it goes wrong is if you choose not to act on that information.
I don't write code as I'm a sysadmin. Mostly just scripts. But is this like saying intellisense writes 25% of my code? Because I use autocomplete to shortcut stuff or to create a for loop to fill with things I want to do.
> I don't write code as I'm a sysadmin. Mostly just scripts. .... so what do you put in your scripts if not code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great anecdote. SOTA models will not provide “engineering” per se, but they will easily double productivity of a product manager that is exploring new product ideas or technologies. They are much more than intelligent auto-complete. I have done more with side projects in the last year than I did in the preceding decade.
One of my friends put it best: I just did a months worth of experimentation in two hours.