4 ms·

The difference is I can instruct an LLM (and have) to knock that shit off.

by theshackleford 1y ago

bilbo0s 1y ago
True. Humans don’t take direction very well.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  Which is good to some extent. We have people off the deep end sharing “unlock/jailbreak prompts” which turn LLMs in to schizophrenia machines affirming any psychosis. While a real person would push back and try to get you help. ChatGPT can’t tell the difference between being given a harmless instruction / role play prompt, vs someone who is going insane. Probably explains why many of the most vocal AI users seem detached from reality, it’s the first time they have someone who blindly affirms everything they think while telling them they are so smart and completely correct all the time.
  - jay_kyburz 1y ago
    Those stack overflow dudes would be savage if you started posting crazy manifestos looking for feedback.
  - morgoths_bane 1y ago
    [dead]
    - jay_kyburz 1y ago
      When I look at how far tech has come in my own life, I'm mid 50's, I don't think the singularity is out of the question in my kids life, or even my own if I'm lucky. When I born there was no such thing as a PC or the internet. As far as I'm aware, the only missing step is for the llms to be able to roll the results of a test back into its training set. It can then start proposing hypotheses and testing them. Then it can do logic. I don't understand the skepticism. LLMs are already a lot smarter than me, all they need is the ability to learn. ** Wikipedia definition of singularity. "an upgradable intelligent agent could eventually enter a positive feedback loop of successive self-improvement cycles; more intelligent generations would appear more and more rapidly, causing a rapid increase ("explosion") in intelligence that culminates in a powerful superintelligence, far surpassing all human intelligence.[4]"
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        >LLMs are already a lot smarter than me That's highly doubtful, not unless your definition of intelligence requires volume of regurgiting information and not contextualizing and building on such knowledge. LLMs are "smart" in the same way a person who gets 1600 on the SAT* is "smart". If you spend your time minmaxing towards a specific task, you get very good at it. That skill can even get you as far in life as being a subject matter expert. But that's not why humans are "inelligent" in my eyes. *yes, there is correlation. Because people who take the time to study and memorize for a test tend to have better work habits than those that don't. But there's a reason why some of those kinds of students can end up completely lost in college despite their diligence to study. >I don't understand the skepticism. To be frank, we're in a time where grifts are running wild and grifters are running away red handed. Inside and outside of tech. I am very septical by default in 2025 for anyone who talks in terms of "what can happen" and not what is actually practical or possible.
        jay_kyburz 1y ago
        I'm no Math Olympic Athlete, and I have a terrible memory. I don't know what they definition of smart is, but you don't have to listen to any of the grifters to know that the current LLMs can do a lot things better than the average person.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        It's a machine. I or no I, we knew for decades what they can excel at and what they fall far short of. Llms only amplify those steneghrs and weaknesses. My definition of intelligence logical intelligence involves the following factors: - able to recognize patterns in data, even complex ones (machines have always excelled in this, with aid of a human) - an ability to break down complex concepts into fundamentals. I.e seductive reasoning (LLMs as of now don't really do this) - conversely, the ability to learn new concepts and apply them to more complex situations (LLMs especially cannot do this without human assistance) - the ability to synthesize a set of data and come to a conclusion given an environmental context. I.e. Critical reasoning (Ai as of now is poor at this. Partially by design, as critique is avoided in their behavior). As a few criteria. Artificial "intelligence" as of now is simply leveraging its superior pattern matching to give the illusion of reasoning, and it's mimicry is close enough for non-subject matter experts to choose to believe its output.
  - stevedonovan 1y ago
    So the cognitive reality of being a billionaire is now available to everyone?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

The difference is I can instruct an LLM (and have) to knock that shit off.

bilbo0s 1y ago

True. Humans don’t take direction very well.

Gigachad 1y ago
Which is good to some extent. We have people off the deep end sharing “unlock/jailbreak prompts” which turn LLMs in to schizophrenia machines affirming any psychosis. While a real person would push back and try to get you help. ChatGPT can’t tell the difference between being given a harmless instruction / role play prompt, vs someone who is going insane. Probably explains why many of the most vocal AI users seem detached from reality, it’s the first time they have someone who blindly affirms everything they think while telling them they are so smart and completely correct all the time.
- jay_kyburz 1y ago
  Those stack overflow dudes would be savage if you started posting crazy manifestos looking for feedback.
- morgoths_bane 1y ago
  [dead]
  - jay_kyburz 1y ago
    When I look at how far tech has come in my own life, I'm mid 50's, I don't think the singularity is out of the question in my kids life, or even my own if I'm lucky. When I born there was no such thing as a PC or the internet. As far as I'm aware, the only missing step is for the llms to be able to roll the results of a test back into its training set. It can then start proposing hypotheses and testing them. Then it can do logic. I don't understand the skepticism. LLMs are already a lot smarter than me, all they need is the ability to learn. ** Wikipedia definition of singularity. "an upgradable intelligent agent could eventually enter a positive feedback loop of successive self-improvement cycles; more intelligent generations would appear more and more rapidly, causing a rapid increase ("explosion") in intelligence that culminates in a powerful superintelligence, far surpassing all human intelligence.[4]"
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >LLMs are already a lot smarter than me That's highly doubtful, not unless your definition of intelligence requires volume of regurgiting information and not contextualizing and building on such knowledge. LLMs are "smart" in the same way a person who gets 1600 on the SAT* is "smart". If you spend your time minmaxing towards a specific task, you get very good at it. That skill can even get you as far in life as being a subject matter expert. But that's not why humans are "inelligent" in my eyes. *yes, there is correlation. Because people who take the time to study and memorize for a test tend to have better work habits than those that don't. But there's a reason why some of those kinds of students can end up completely lost in college despite their diligence to study. >I don't understand the skepticism. To be frank, we're in a time where grifts are running wild and grifters are running away red handed. Inside and outside of tech. I am very septical by default in 2025 for anyone who talks in terms of "what can happen" and not what is actually practical or possible.
      - jay_kyburz 1y ago
        I'm no Math Olympic Athlete, and I have a terrible memory. I don't know what they definition of smart is, but you don't have to listen to any of the grifters to know that the current LLMs can do a lot things better than the average person.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        It's a machine. I or no I, we knew for decades what they can excel at and what they fall far short of. Llms only amplify those steneghrs and weaknesses. My definition of intelligence logical intelligence involves the following factors: - able to recognize patterns in data, even complex ones (machines have always excelled in this, with aid of a human) - an ability to break down complex concepts into fundamentals. I.e seductive reasoning (LLMs as of now don't really do this) - conversely, the ability to learn new concepts and apply them to more complex situations (LLMs especially cannot do this without human assistance) - the ability to synthesize a set of data and come to a conclusion given an environmental context. I.e. Critical reasoning (Ai as of now is poor at this. Partially by design, as critique is avoided in their behavior). As a few criteria. Artificial "intelligence" as of now is simply leveraging its superior pattern matching to give the illusion of reasoning, and it's mimicry is close enough for non-subject matter experts to choose to believe its output.
- stevedonovan 1y ago
  So the cognitive reality of being a billionaire is now available to everyone?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]