4 ms·

AI is just a weighted graph which stands on shoulders of a million giants. However, it can't cite, can't fact check, doesn't know when it's hallucinating, and i

AI is just a weighted graph which stands on shoulders of a million giants. However, it can't cite, can't fact check, doesn't know when it's hallucinating, and its creators doesn't respect any of the work which they need to feed to that graph to make it to fake its all knowledgeable accent. Tech is useful, how it's built is very unethical, and how it's worshiped is sad.

jaoane 1y ago
I think you are a bit outdated, since state of the art AIs can cite and fact check just fine.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Give them tools, maybe, but "The network" can't do it natively. They doesn't have an understanding, can't filter out "ad absurdum". Plus they can only go so deep. Maybe they can hit snopes and check something, but I don't believe current ones even with tools do detailed cross examination with open ended research and stop when they are convinced that they have enough data.
  - jaoane 1y ago
    That's like saying that humans can't tighten screws because they need screwdrivers.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Nope. This is akin having no long term memory and don't able to tell when and where you learnt that water boils at 100 degrees C first, and it in fact burns very badly.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
danielbln 1y ago
Modern LLM offerings can use tools, including search, and that (like most good RAG) enables citation and fact checking. If you use LLMs like it's late 2022 and you just opened ChatGPT, then that's not indicative on how you should be using LLMs today.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  I think I cleared my point about tools in another reply I wrote somewhere close [0]. As I said, the network doesn't carry citation/source information. IOW, when it doesn't use a tool, it can't know where it ingested that particular piece of information. This is a big no no, and it's the same reason they hallucinate and they'll continue doing that. As a tangent, I see AI agents hit my digital garden for technical notes, and I'll probably add Anubis in front of that link in short order. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807
  - danielbln 1y ago
    I don't understand the point though. If you take tools away from me then I'm not particularly reliable or productive either.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      But you are aware that you may not be reliable or reduced in capacity. An LLM without tools doesn't know or can't know this.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
You’re still in denial and possibly behind. AI cites stuff all the time and has become agentic. On the opposite end of the spectrum of worshippers there are naysayers and deniers. It’s easy to see why there are delusional people at both ends of the spectrum. The reason is that the promise of AI both heralds an amazing future of machines and a horrible future where machines surpass humanity.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  I don't think I'm a denier, or being behind [0]. I know about tools and agents. For the third time [1] [2], I'll divide the line between core network and tools that core network uses. Agents are nothing new, and they expand capabilities of the LLMs, yes that's true. But they still can't answer the question "how did you generate this code and which source repositories you did use" when the LLM didn't use any tools. The core network doesn't store citation/source information. It's not designed and trained in a way to do that. geez. [0]: https://notes.bayindirh.io/notes/Lists/Discussions+about+Artificial+Intelligence https://notes.bayindirh.io/notes/Lists/Discussions+about+Art... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972892
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Agents are nothing new? They’ve only been around for a couple years. The rustiness is expected. Second the question you brought up can’t be answered even by a human. It’s a stupid question right? You blindfold a human and prevent him from using any tools and then ask him what tools he used? What do you expect will happen. Either the human will lie to you about what he did or tell you what he didn’t do. No different from an LLM. The core network doesn’t store anything except generalization curve. Similar to your brain. You didn’t store those references in your brain right? You looked that shit up. The agentic LLM will do the same and the UI literally tells you it’s doing a search across websites. Geeze.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
echelon 1y ago
> However, it can't cite, can't fact check, doesn't know when it's hallucinating Maybe some folks need this, but the way I use this tech doesn't rely upon that so much. By the time results start appearing, my brain is already fast at work processing the output to qualify whether the information the LLMs return is accurate, whether it's a good leaping off point, whether I can keep drilling deeper, expand my prompt scope, etc. I'm using it as search. Just as old search had garbage results we had to filter out, so do LLMs. But this tool is a way more advanced query language than Google ever supported. These tools are like "Google 9000". It feels like I'm plugged into the Matrix rather than getting SEO'd garbage. I know the results have issues, but that doesn't matter - I can quickly draw together the pieces and navigate around it. Compared to Google, it feels like piloting a star ship.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  > By the time results start appearing, my brain is already fast at work processing the output to qualify whether the information the LLMs return is accurate, whether it's a good leaping off point, whether I can keep drilling deeper, expand my prompt scope, etc. Seems unnecessarily tiring. Instead I use a SEO spam and ad-free search engine. It's called Kagi. It allows me to further refine my search via lenses and site prioritization. Also, it has zero hallucination chance, because it's a deterministic search engine. > It feels like I'm plugged into the Matrix rather than getting SEO'd garbage. I know the results have issues, but that doesn't matter - I can quickly draw together the pieces and navigate around it. Compared to Google, it feels like piloting a star ship. Same for Kagi, without selling my data or trawling information obtained without consent or disregard of ethics, and many other things. Note: I don't use any of the Kagi's AI features, incl. proofreading.

jaoane 1y ago

I think you are a bit outdated, since state of the art AIs can cite and fact check just fine.

bayindirh 1y ago
Give them tools, maybe, but "The network" can't do it natively. They doesn't have an understanding, can't filter out "ad absurdum". Plus they can only go so deep. Maybe they can hit snopes and check something, but I don't believe current ones even with tools do detailed cross examination with open ended research and stop when they are convinced that they have enough data.
- jaoane 1y ago
  That's like saying that humans can't tighten screws because they need screwdrivers.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    Nope. This is akin having no long term memory and don't able to tell when and where you learnt that water boils at 100 degrees C first, and it in fact burns very badly.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

danielbln 1y ago

Modern LLM offerings can use tools, including search, and that (like most good RAG) enables citation and fact checking. If you use LLMs like it's late 2022 and you just opened ChatGPT, then that's not indicative on how you should be using LLMs today.

bayindirh 1y ago
I think I cleared my point about tools in another reply I wrote somewhere close [0]. As I said, the network doesn't carry citation/source information. IOW, when it doesn't use a tool, it can't know where it ingested that particular piece of information. This is a big no no, and it's the same reason they hallucinate and they'll continue doing that. As a tangent, I see AI agents hit my digital garden for technical notes, and I'll probably add Anubis in front of that link in short order. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807
- danielbln 1y ago
  I don't understand the point though. If you take tools away from me then I'm not particularly reliable or productive either.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    But you are aware that you may not be reliable or reduced in capacity. An LLM without tools doesn't know or can't know this.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

You’re still in denial and possibly behind. AI cites stuff all the time and has become agentic. On the opposite end of the spectrum of worshippers there are naysayers and deniers. It’s easy to see why there are delusional people at both ends of the spectrum. The reason is that the promise of AI both heralds an amazing future of machines and a horrible future where machines surpass humanity.

bayindirh 1y ago
I don't think I'm a denier, or being behind [0]. I know about tools and agents. For the third time [1] [2], I'll divide the line between core network and tools that core network uses. Agents are nothing new, and they expand capabilities of the LLMs, yes that's true. But they still can't answer the question "how did you generate this code and which source repositories you did use" when the LLM didn't use any tools. The core network doesn't store citation/source information. It's not designed and trained in a way to do that. geez. [0]: https://notes.bayindirh.io/notes/Lists/Discussions+about+Artificial+Intelligence https://notes.bayindirh.io/notes/Lists/Discussions+about+Art... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972807 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43972892
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Agents are nothing new? They’ve only been around for a couple years. The rustiness is expected. Second the question you brought up can’t be answered even by a human. It’s a stupid question right? You blindfold a human and prevent him from using any tools and then ask him what tools he used? What do you expect will happen. Either the human will lie to you about what he did or tell you what he didn’t do. No different from an LLM. The core network doesn’t store anything except generalization curve. Similar to your brain. You didn’t store those references in your brain right? You looked that shit up. The agentic LLM will do the same and the UI literally tells you it’s doing a search across websites. Geeze.
  - bayindirh 1y ago

echelon 1y ago

> However, it can't cite, can't fact check, doesn't know when it's hallucinating Maybe some folks need this, but the way I use this tech doesn't rely upon that so much. By the time results start appearing, my brain is already fast at work processing the output to qualify whether the information the LLMs return is accurate, whether it's a good leaping off point, whether I can keep drilling deeper, expand my prompt scope, etc. I'm using it as search. Just as old search had garbage results we had to filter out, so do LLMs. But this tool is a way more advanced query language than Google ever supported. These tools are like "Google 9000". It feels like I'm plugged into the Matrix rather than getting SEO'd garbage. I know the results have issues, but that doesn't matter - I can quickly draw together the pieces and navigate around it. Compared to Google, it feels like piloting a star ship.

bayindirh 1y ago
> By the time results start appearing, my brain is already fast at work processing the output to qualify whether the information the LLMs return is accurate, whether it's a good leaping off point, whether I can keep drilling deeper, expand my prompt scope, etc. Seems unnecessarily tiring. Instead I use a SEO spam and ad-free search engine. It's called Kagi. It allows me to further refine my search via lenses and site prioritization. Also, it has zero hallucination chance, because it's a deterministic search engine. > It feels like I'm plugged into the Matrix rather than getting SEO'd garbage. I know the results have issues, but that doesn't matter - I can quickly draw together the pieces and navigate around it. Compared to Google, it feels like piloting a star ship. Same for Kagi, without selling my data or trawling information obtained without consent or disregard of ethics, and many other things. Note: I don't use any of the Kagi's AI features, incl. proofreading.