5 ms·

> ALL of them were hallucinations This is a known issue. How about asking it to generate code? I don’t really trust that you won’t just deliberately find an ex

> ALL of them were hallucinations This is a known issue. How about asking it to generate code? I don’t really trust that you won’t just deliberately find an example that doesn’t work and say “see?! It’s so dumb!!!” And further this type of reaction reeks of the sort of insecurity that the parent comment was suggesting. You _need _ these things to be unintelligent. It threatened your individual skill set, so you prompted it like a human rather than deliberately leaning into its strengths and “assuming good faith” (whatever that means for an LLM). Fwiw, plugins will likely solve this issue. As well more advanced models.

zvmaz 4y ago
I asked the author of the comment to give me an example of the many "intellectual" tasks that can be done by "systems" that are "internally simple" (what does "simple" mean?) but "large" (with or without human intervention?). I then pointed to the known (and serious) issue of hallucinations; how does this all fit with the author's "reductionist" model of much human thought being "just autocomplete"? I don't feel threatened as my previous comment suggests; I just think that human thought is not "just autocomplete".
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  I think you took that “just autocomplete” thing entirely too seriously. They were being poetic.
WalterSear 4y ago
I'm using it effectively to generate code. It needs coaching, but it's faster than writing out boilerplate on my own. I'm using it in a language I'm unfamiliar with (C++) and it helps me resolve my mistakes as often as I have to fill in the blanks that it leaves. I'm giving it very specific instruction ("write a class that does this", "write a method that does this"), though often by describing what is required in terms of the complete use case, rather than the specific I/O. I haven't come up against any hallucination so far in this task - instead, it tends to leaves complex bits "as an exercise for the reader". I either code up those parts myself, or I just ask it for that specific method on it's own and dump it in. The process feels as if I'm interviewing a job candidate and stealing their code to put in production.

zvmaz 4y ago

I asked the author of the comment to give me an example of the many "intellectual" tasks that can be done by "systems" that are "internally simple" (what does "simple" mean?) but "large" (with or without human intervention?). I then pointed to the known (and serious) issue of hallucinations; how does this all fit with the author's "reductionist" model of much human thought being "just autocomplete"? I don't feel threatened as my previous comment suggests; I just think that human thought is not "just autocomplete".

ShamelessC 4y ago
I think you took that “just autocomplete” thing entirely too seriously. They were being poetic.

WalterSear 4y ago

I'm using it effectively to generate code. It needs coaching, but it's faster than writing out boilerplate on my own. I'm using it in a language I'm unfamiliar with (C++) and it helps me resolve my mistakes as often as I have to fill in the blanks that it leaves. I'm giving it very specific instruction ("write a class that does this", "write a method that does this"), though often by describing what is required in terms of the complete use case, rather than the specific I/O. I haven't come up against any hallucination so far in this task - instead, it tends to leaves complex bits "as an exercise for the reader". I either code up those parts myself, or I just ask it for that specific method on it's own and dump it in. The process feels as if I'm interviewing a job candidate and stealing their code to put in production.