threethirtytwo

Why? I think you're just an idiot. But prove me wrong. Please explain why you think they're weird and why you're not an idiot?

Nobody is proud of this. Where the hell did you get that idea?

I think weak and scared people tend to not want to face the truth about AI. I said the above not because I support it (I don't), I said it because it's the god awful truth. All trendlines point to steadily improving AI, and tons and tons of people continue to call it slop even though it is clearly becoming better.

My question for you is, in order to sleep at night do you have to lie to yourself? Do you make up stories about how AI will never be as good as human intelligence and do you assume anyone who says the contrary is an ardent supporter of AI? Have you thought that... maybe nobody really supports AI, they're just telling the truth?

Weird my ass, just stupid people who clearly assume the wrong thing.

well, if it's disconnected from me... it has nothing to do with me, whatever it does has NOTHING to do with me.

Problem is I need the LLM to do this without an SS.

When AI is a the forefront of scientific breakthroughs and all human endeavor is painfully minuscule compared to AI, we'll still be calling it slop as we all hypocritically generate more and more slop.

Best idea. Thanks.

What's a good way to give a limited amount of money to the LLM, say like 2k or 5k or something. But keep it completely separate from my identity.

Like I want the LLM to have a bank account and he can do ANYTHING with that bank account that he wants. But he can't fuck anything up that has to so with me. He only has 2 - 5k

Terrence Tao getting paid by openAI is, to you, the most probable conclusion... much more so then the LLM actually being able to come up with math proofs?

Is it not objective reality that the feat performed by the LLM here is much more then parroting or summarizing something?

It's doing math proofs. At this point, it's fully clear that objective reality is that the LLM is not parroting anything here.

I think it's quite clear the proof here shows that it is not a parrot. It objectively isn't.... that's the only rational conclusion. Yet many people claim that it is, so the main conclusion is fear/hatred is causing people to rationalize their logic to fit the narrative they prefer.

Genuine question: If you still or did think LLMs are just stochastic parrots that just summarize everything and have no form of creativity, what do you think after seeing results like this?

I'm very curious how people reconcile their fear/hatred of AI with actual objective reality. This is actually what interests me most about the whole AI thing. How we tell ourselves what we tell ourselves.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/03/americans-iq-s...

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/03/americans-iq-s...

Testing will never be complete.

  def plus(a, b):
    return a + b

Testing is a statistical sample. You sample a small subset out of the full domain of possible tests and that sample you hope is somewhat representative of the actual population of tests. To put it in a sentence: If my suite of tests is correct then it is more likely that the entire full universe of every single possible test for my program can all be correct.

Realistically though the universe of all possible tests is so large that it's basically impossible for any sample to be a good representation of it. A suite of test does help up confidence that things will be MORE correct, but the sample size is so small it is almost guaranteed that you missed something.

Such a bizarre train of thought. There's nothing inevitable about this future

What's bizarre is that you attributed "inevitable" to what I said. I never used that term. Most probably and most likely is the more accurate term. The best possible odds according to the information we have and that is the trendline progression of AI for the last decade is that it will become better than us.

Most people HATE what's being proposed. Why wouldn't you fight against something this shitty?

I'm not fighting anything right now. I'm just communicating. With truth. Whether I'm against AI or for AI or whether I want to fight AI is orthogonal to OBJECTIVE reality. I am simply communicating truth.

Also, what would even be your motivation for telling me my life is meaningless? Like, what's your expectation here, that I lie down on the ground and go "welp, why even bother".

Because it's true. Whether you lie down after hearing the truth or attempt to lie to yourself is your prerogative.

My opinion is that the only people proposing a narrative like this have a direct financial incentive from the AI companies. I see no other value to promoting this narrative.

I have no financial incentive. In fact I stand to lose everything just like you. The difference between you and I is that I have the ability to stare at the sun.

Flynn effect research says otherwise.

Flynn effect is just a trend for the past century or so and it's an international measure. For the past decade there's been a trend for the US exclusively that is not aligned with the flynn effect.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/03/americans-iq-s...

Why would you think the same genes control intelligence and skin color?

I mean the same genes on the entire DNA strand. Wholistically all of those genes define who you are.

It turns out, a population can select for more than one gene at a time. Crazy.

Uh yeah? So.

What we don't know is what genes individuals carry. That's why racism is stupid. Elon would agree.

What do you mean individuals? We CAN measure genes of an individual FYI. And if we can measure genes of an individual we can also measure them for groups and come up with generalized figures and correlations.

I accept it. You will too. Eventually. As AI improves, the reviews will just become more and more just time wasting blockers.

So you're claim is prehistoric humans are stupider? Also unsubstantiated. And insulting to prehistoric humans. That kind of behavior isn't allowed on HN. Don't disparage a group.

Stone age humans. Not pre hominids.

1. No IQ tests for prehistoric humans. 2. IQ is going down in the US.

no force pushes. And probably not an intern.

But code that never gets looked at and only tested? Yes. And as AI gets better this will be happening in all companies... more and more.

True. But you are voted down because not everyone can face the truth. So just lie a little and say "we don't know" even though the truth is we know enough to know that some races are on average more intelligent then others.

People have biases around this stuff and most people can't think critically so if you want them to be receptive you have to lie a bit.

Nope. Not true anymore. Right now the bottleneck is the review because code comes out so fast there is a measurable and adjustable trade off that can be made.

If you review all code, your output will be slow. If you review less code, your output will be faster at the cost of more bugs in production. Bug rate will never go down to zero whether you use AI or not.

That is the trade off, if you review everything then output is really slow. If you start only reviewing certain types of code like model changes, database changes. Or only backend code and not frontend code, you hit a sweet spot of speed and reliability.

As LLMs improve the need for reviews becomes less and less. Companies who don't adjust are just slowing themselves down. That is the trend.

There's a saying that the intelligence of an average prehistoric cave man should be, in general, higher than a modern day human simply because the lack of technology required stone age humans to be far more intelligent then we are today. Now you can survive by working as a clerk in McDs, but in the stone age you needed to be on your toes and smart af.

LLMs are just continuing the trend humanity has long been traveling down.

You're all in denial when you criticize LLMs. It's not necessarily that the criticism isn't true. It's more how self assured the criticism is. That's the biggest problem because AI is a moving target. It is getting better, and it is getting better fast. A lot of the criticism can become outdated in a year or six months. The change is happening in front of your very eyes and yet you can always reliably come on HN and find some sort of self assured criticism to say AI can't design, AI code must always be reviewed. Blah blah blah.

The big thing people used to call AI was that it was a stochastic parrot and all it did was summarize things. Clearly. None of this is/was true anymore. And very likely all the current criticism will be eliminated soon and we have to find new excuses about AI that makes us feel we are superior.

The status quo is about to change. Every 6 months. And you will always think of yourself as superior to LLMs. Your current criticisms will evolve as most of them will be rendered not true pretty soon.

No he doesn't. There's a lot of bullshit surrounding him. Things are taken out of context.

I will say this, he believes in things about race that are controversial. For example that races may have different IQs. But you have to realize we don't actually know if races have different IQs. The idea fits common sense though... if races can LOOK different... what black magic suddenly makes them completely equal in intelligence when the same genes that govern looks also govern intelligence? We don't have hard evidence on this so right now the best we can say is we don't know but measured evidence and common sense points to the possibility of intellectual differences.

This, in itself, is not actually racist.

He does believe individual meritocracy so meaning even though he believes race correlates with certain stereotypes (like intelligence) he feels that people on the intellectual level need to be judged by merit and not by race.

I mean some people on this earth refuse to use electricity and they still live away from civilization. When I say people use electricity I obviously don't refer to those people.

So when I say we don't code by hand anymore. I'm obviously not referring to you.

"The fact that you still hold a rank as a software engineer right now is only because that machine is slightly worse than you. But as it improves, your role becomes meaningless. The life you built your skills around becomes meaningless. It is less about what AI is now and more about the trajectory of AI and what the current AI says about the AI of the near tomorrow"

^ read what I wrote. I'm telling you the future, but you're talking about your current job. So there's no contradiction here. Your current situation FITS what I said. And my prediction of the future is the most likely out come.

What even motivates you to write something like this

Because it's the most likely truth? It's the most probably reality. The god awful truth is like the sun. It permeates everything, it's rays touch everything and it's a very obvious flaming fireball in the sky, yet nobody can stare directly at it. No one can fully face the sun.

I ask you, What motivates you to lie to yourself? To deny the obvious trajectory of AI? Does preserving your livelihood involve denying reality?

woah cool, I'll ask my agent if it likes this better. If so I'll have it start using it!

Let the LLM decide what that is.