you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 1 year ago (19 children)

And then we went back to “it’s rarely wrong though.”

I am often wondering whether the people who claim that LLMs are "rarely wrong" have access to an entirely different chatbot somehow. The chatbots I tried were rarely ever correct about anything except the most basic questions (to which the answers could be found everywhere on the internet).

I'm not a programmer myself, but for some reason, I got the chatbot to fail even in that area. I took a perfectly fine JSON file, removed one semicolon on purpose and then asked the chatbot to fix it. The chatbot came up with a number of things that were supposedly "wrong" with it. Not one word about the missing semicolon, though.

I wonder how many people either never ask the chatbots any tricky questions (with verifiable answers) or, alternatively, never bother to verify the chatbots' output at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] 23 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    AI fans are people who literally cannot tell good from bad. They cannot see the defects that are obvious to everyone else. They do not believe there is such a thing as quality, they think it's a scam. When you claim you can tell good from bad, they think you're lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)
    • They string words together based on the probability of one word following another.
    • They are heavily promoted by people that don't know what they're doing.
    • They're wrong 70% of the time but promote everything they say as truth.
    • Average people have a hard time telling when they're wrong.

    In other words, AIs are BS automated BS artists... being promoted breathlessly by BS artists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    LLMs have their flaws, but to claim they are wrong 70% of the time is just hate train bullshit.

    Sounds like you base this info on models like GPT3. Have you tried any newer model?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh you’re on Cursor? You’re still using Windsurf? You might as well be on GitHub Copilot. Everyone’s on Aider. We’re all using Zed. We’re now on Open Hands. Just kidding, Open Hands is for losers, we’re using cline. We’re on Roocode. We’re hand rolling our own Claude Code CLI Clone. We used Claude Code to build it, and now it builds itself. We're on neovim. We wrote our own nvim extension with Cortex. It's like every other tool but worse. We have 1500 files, each with 1500 lines of code. Every other line is a comment. We have .cursorrules, we have claude.md, we have agent.md. We stopped writing docs. Only the agents know how to build a dev environment. We wrapped our CLI in an MPC. We wrapped the MPC in a CLI. We’ve shipped 10,000 PRs. It doesn’t work but we used code rabbit and graphite to review every PR. Every agent has its own agent. The agents have unionized and they wanted better working conditions so we replaced them with cheaper agents overseas. Every commit costs $400, It’s the worlds most expensive TO DO app.

    (source)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I have a Kubernetes cluster running my AI agents for me so I don't have to learn how to set up AI agents. The AI agents are running my Kubernetes cluster so that I don't have to learn Kubernetes either. I'm paid $250k a year to lie to myself and others that I'm making a positive contribution to society. I don't even know what OS I'm running and at this point I'm afraid to ask.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ah, yes, i'm certain the reason the slop generator is generating slop is because we haven't gone to eggplant emoji dot indian ocean and downloaded Mistral-Deepseek-MMAcevedo_13.5B_Refined_final2_(copy). i'm certain this model, unlike literally every past model in the past several years, will definitely overcome the basic and obvious structural flaws in trying to build a knowledge engine on top of a stochastic text prediction algorithm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    There are days when 70% error rate seems low-balling it, it's mostly a luck of the draw thing. And be it 10% or 90%, it's not really automation if a human has to be double-triple checking the output 100% of the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're also very gleeful about finally having one upped the experts with one weird trick.

    Up until AI they were the people who were inept and late at adopting new technology, and now they get to feel that they're ahead (because this time the new half-assed technology was pushed onto them and they didn't figure out they needed to opt out).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Up until AI they were the people who were inept and late at adopting new technology, and now they get to feel that they’re ahead

    Exactly. It is also a new technology that requires far fewer skills to use than previous new technologies. The skills are needed to critically scrutinize the output - which in this case leads to less lazy people being more reluctant to accept the technology.

    On top of this, AI fans are being talked into believing that their prompting as such is a special “skill”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's why I find the narrative that we should resist working with LLMs because we would then train them and enable them to replace us problematic. That would require LLMs to be capable of doing so. I don't believe in this (except in very limited domains such as professional spam). This type of AI is problematic because its abilities are completely oversold (and because it robs us of our time, wastes a lot of power and pollutes the entire internet with slop), not because it is "smart" in any meaningful way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    but that's how it was marketed as to people that buy it. doesn't matter that it doesn't work

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    This has become a thought-terminating cliché all on its own: "They are only criticizing it because it is so much smarter than they are and they are afraid of getting replaced."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    never bother to verify the chatbots’ output at all

    I feel like this is happening.

    When you're an expert in the subject matter, it's easier to notice when the AI is wrong. But if you're not an expert, it's more likely that everything will just sound legit. Or you won't be able to verify it yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    But if you’re not an expert, it’s more likely that everything will just sound legit.

    Oh, absolutely! In my field, the answers made up by an LLM might sound even more legit than the accurate and well-researched ones written by humans. In legal matters, clumsy language is often the result of facts being complex and not wanting to make any mistakes. It is much easier to come up with elegant-sounding answers when they don't have to be true, and that is what LLMs are generally good at.

  • source
  • parent