3 ms·
No, asking an LLM to generate the inkblot is the same as asking the LLM to write a string and then obfuscating it in an inkblot. OCRing literal random inkblots
by dmbche 1y ago
No, asking an LLM to generate the inkblot is the same as asking the LLM to write a string and then obfuscating it in an inkblot.
OCRing literal random inkblots will not produce valid C (or C# or python) code, but it will prodce valid Perl most of the time, because Perl is weird, and that is funny.
It's not about obfuscating text in inkblot, it's about almost any string being a valid Perl program, which is not the case for most languages
Edit0: here: https://www.mcmillen.dev/sigbovik/ https://www.mcmillen.dev/sigbovik/
- johnisgood 1y agoOkay, my bad. > it's about almost any string being a valid Perl program Is this true? I think most random unquoted strings aren't valid Perl programs either, am I wrong?
- akerl_ 1y agoYes. That was the whole point of the original comment you were misunderstanding. Because of the flexibility of Perl and heavy amount of symbol usage, you can in fact run most random combinations of strings and they’ll be valid Perl. Copying from the original comment: https://www.mcmillen.dev/sigbovik/ https://www.mcmillen.dev/sigbovik/