4 ms·

LLM reflects YOUR intelligence, it's the secret truth.

by revskill 1y ago

goodpoint 1y ago
If anything it reflects the intelligence of the people whose work is being stolen.
- rvnx 1y ago
  Ycombinator is an accomplice of this, and you know, all they will get is billions of tainted money as punishment. But I guess they can live with that.
cainxinth 1y ago
Just like all the people who think their LLM is sentient or an alien or a god are really just talking to themselves.
rvnx 1y ago
Many of the complainers don't know how to use them and how to write prompts, and then blame the LLMs. Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT, Gemini Pro, etc). You need to be in the shoes of a product owner, and be able to express your requirements clearly and drive the LLM in your direction, and this requires to learn new skills (like kids learn how to use search engines).
- timr 1y ago
  > Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT, Gemini Pro, etc). I love how one side of this debate seems to have embraced "No True Scotsman" as the preferred argument strategy. Anyone who points out that these things have practical limitations gets a litany of "oh you aren't using it right" or "oh, you just aren't using the cool model" in response. It reminds me of the hipsters in SF who always felt your music was a little too last week. As someone who is currently using these every day, Gemini Pro is right up there with the very best models for writing code -- and "GPT" is not a single thing -- so I have no idea what you're talking about. These things have practical limitations.
  - rvnx 1y ago
    <removed dismissive answer />
    - timr 1y ago
      Your impression of hipsters is certainly dead-on.
      - rvnx 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - tpmoney 1y ago
    I don’t think anyone* doesn’t think these things don’t have practical limitations. It’s more that a lot of the negative stories and results seem to have a “I asked a random stranger on the internet to balance my check book and got money stolen” vibe to them that very much do fall into a “you’re using it wrong” category**. They absolutely have limitations, they absolutely get things wrong and need a real human involved still. They’re also a lot more capable when used in the right contexts and with the right tooling than some people are giving them credit for. It’s a new tool and like most new and exciting tools, it’s going to be shoved everywhere, it will take time to learn to use effectively, and everyone and their dog is going to try building “Thing but with AI”, just like when the internet was new and exciting everything was “Thing but online”. And some ideas will turn out to be terrible, some will turn out to be too early, but viable as tech improves, and some (like AI code completion, and some of the better agent based tools) will prove to be useful now and get better as the tech gets better and users get more skilled. * Yes there are some truly unhinged boosters and CEOs out there that think they’re going to replace their entire support staff with chat models tomorrow. They’re wrong and the best thing we can do to discourage that is make it painful and hold them to the promises their AI makes, even if it means they need to give away a year of free flights because the chat bot said they would. ** corollary to the above note, plenty of the negative articles / experiences are also just exploring the real limitations and reporting on them. But the internet is the internet and as always it’s the extremes that get amplified and make for the biggest clicks. It is frustrating that even in spaces like HN where you might expect more nuanced discussion a lot of the discussion seems to fall into the extreme booster/detractor headlines and re-hashes of those positions (and strawmen of both) rather than interesting explorations of the extents and limits. I suppose you just can’t really have a good nuanced discussion with you and a thousand of your closest friends.
- WorldMaker 1y ago
  > Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT As still the default for GitHub Copilot GPT doesn't seem to "struggle" at all with writing good code. Anecdotally, in comparison with GPT, Claude seems woefully under-trained in areas such as PowerShell and cross-platform solutions compared to GPT. (Which also seems to show directly in Claude Code's awful cross-platform support. If Claude is so good why doesn't it fix Claude Code's Windows support? Add more PowerShell support instead of just bashing out bash-isms?) A lot of impressions of the LLMs are hugely subjective, and I'm inclined to the above poster's suggestion a lot of of what you get out of an LLM is a reflection of who you are and what you put in to the LLM. (They are massively optimized GIGO machines after all.)
- thi2 1y ago
  Would you mind sharing good and bad examples of prompts? I always read comments like yours and miss examples.

LLM reflects YOUR intelligence, it's the secret truth.

goodpoint 1y ago

If anything it reflects the intelligence of the people whose work is being stolen.

rvnx 1y ago
Ycombinator is an accomplice of this, and you know, all they will get is billions of tainted money as punishment. But I guess they can live with that.

cainxinth 1y ago

Just like all the people who think their LLM is sentient or an alien or a god are really just talking to themselves.

rvnx 1y ago

Many of the complainers don't know how to use them and how to write prompts, and then blame the LLMs. Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT, Gemini Pro, etc). You need to be in the shoes of a product owner, and be able to express your requirements clearly and drive the LLM in your direction, and this requires to learn new skills (like kids learn how to use search engines).

timr 1y ago
> Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT, Gemini Pro, etc). I love how one side of this debate seems to have embraced "No True Scotsman" as the preferred argument strategy. Anyone who points out that these things have practical limitations gets a litany of "oh you aren't using it right" or "oh, you just aren't using the cool model" in response. It reminds me of the hipsters in SF who always felt your music was a little too last week. As someone who is currently using these every day, Gemini Pro is right up there with the very best models for writing code -- and "GPT" is not a single thing -- so I have no idea what you're talking about. These things have practical limitations.
- rvnx 1y ago
  <removed dismissive answer />
  - timr 1y ago
    Your impression of hipsters is certainly dead-on.
    - rvnx 1y ago
      [flagged]
- tpmoney 1y ago
  I don’t think anyone* doesn’t think these things don’t have practical limitations. It’s more that a lot of the negative stories and results seem to have a “I asked a random stranger on the internet to balance my check book and got money stolen” vibe to them that very much do fall into a “you’re using it wrong” category**. They absolutely have limitations, they absolutely get things wrong and need a real human involved still. They’re also a lot more capable when used in the right contexts and with the right tooling than some people are giving them credit for. It’s a new tool and like most new and exciting tools, it’s going to be shoved everywhere, it will take time to learn to use effectively, and everyone and their dog is going to try building “Thing but with AI”, just like when the internet was new and exciting everything was “Thing but online”. And some ideas will turn out to be terrible, some will turn out to be too early, but viable as tech improves, and some (like AI code completion, and some of the better agent based tools) will prove to be useful now and get better as the tech gets better and users get more skilled. * Yes there are some truly unhinged boosters and CEOs out there that think they’re going to replace their entire support staff with chat models tomorrow. They’re wrong and the best thing we can do to discourage that is make it painful and hold them to the promises their AI makes, even if it means they need to give away a year of free flights because the chat bot said they would. ** corollary to the above note, plenty of the negative articles / experiences are also just exploring the real limitations and reporting on them. But the internet is the internet and as always it’s the extremes that get amplified and make for the biggest clicks. It is frustrating that even in spaces like HN where you might expect more nuanced discussion a lot of the discussion seems to fall into the extreme booster/detractor headlines and re-hashes of those positions (and strawmen of both) rather than interesting explorations of the extents and limits. I suppose you just can’t really have a good nuanced discussion with you and a thousand of your closest friends.
WorldMaker 1y ago
> Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT As still the default for GitHub Copilot GPT doesn't seem to "struggle" at all with writing good code. Anecdotally, in comparison with GPT, Claude seems woefully under-trained in areas such as PowerShell and cross-platform solutions compared to GPT. (Which also seems to show directly in Claude Code's awful cross-platform support. If Claude is so good why doesn't it fix Claude Code's Windows support? Add more PowerShell support instead of just bashing out bash-isms?) A lot of impressions of the LLMs are hugely subjective, and I'm inclined to the above poster's suggestion a lot of of what you get out of an LLM is a reflection of who you are and what you put in to the LLM. (They are massively optimized GIGO machines after all.)
thi2 1y ago
Would you mind sharing good and bad examples of prompts? I always read comments like yours and miss examples.