3 ms·

I brought this up in a previous HN thread, it's what I call "probabilistic UX". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item

I brought this up in a previous HN thread, it's what I call "probabilistic UX". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954719 We don't have much experience building automated systems that are non-deterministic. Normally, in computer engineering, if we couldn't predict the results of an operation, we'd consider that operation buggy, broken or at best, flaky. Building consumer user interfaces for black box magic is a whole new ballgame.

surfingdino 2y ago
> We don't have much experience building automated systems that are non-deterministic Our brains evolved to turn chaos into patterns that help us survive. Determinism is good from that point of view and nondeterministic behaviour is discarded as useless. Nature in general operates in a deterministic way, a banana tree doesn't randomly produce kittens. AI and LLMs in particular are nothing but misinformation and IP appropriation systems. No wonder people reject them.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  I bet that if you included an expensive verification step by GPT 4 a lot of errors would go away.
  - Piskvorrr 2y ago
    It always circles back to "follow the money": - the system could theoretically trace the inputs, but then IP lawyers would eat company alive; pretending the corpus isn't pirated, so it can be cheap. - the system could verify and re-check, but that would require a massive compute increase; spouting bullshit, so it can be cheap - indeed a lot of answers around here go with "let's waste money by throwing it at the system until a human likes the result" - not cheap, but profitable for the provider
Piskvorrr 2y ago
"It sorta kinda works, most of the time, when it doesn't, Retry Reboot Reinstall^W^W, and if it's still broken, you're SOL - and thats by-design, we're not fixing the product." The word you're looking for is enshittification.

surfingdino 2y ago

> We don't have much experience building automated systems that are non-deterministic Our brains evolved to turn chaos into patterns that help us survive. Determinism is good from that point of view and nondeterministic behaviour is discarded as useless. Nature in general operates in a deterministic way, a banana tree doesn't randomly produce kittens. AI and LLMs in particular are nothing but misinformation and IP appropriation systems. No wonder people reject them.

ImHereToVote 2y ago
I bet that if you included an expensive verification step by GPT 4 a lot of errors would go away.
- Piskvorrr 2y ago
  It always circles back to "follow the money": - the system could theoretically trace the inputs, but then IP lawyers would eat company alive; pretending the corpus isn't pirated, so it can be cheap. - the system could verify and re-check, but that would require a massive compute increase; spouting bullshit, so it can be cheap - indeed a lot of answers around here go with "let's waste money by throwing it at the system until a human likes the result" - not cheap, but profitable for the provider

Piskvorrr 2y ago

"It sorta kinda works, most of the time, when it doesn't, Retry Reboot Reinstall^W^W, and if it's still broken, you're SOL - and thats by-design, we're not fixing the product." The word you're looking for is enshittification.