5 ms·

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what th

by Quarrel 11mo ago

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright they were for asking it, and here is the answer. OpenAI then get caught in a revenue maximising hell-hole of garbage. God, I hope I am wrong.

intended 11mo ago
We know they are using it like search - there’s a jigsaw paper around this.
torben-friis 11mo ago
I’m of two minds about this. The ass licking is dangerous to our already too tight information bubbles, that part is clear. But that aside, I think I prefer a conversational/buddylike interaction to an encyclopedic tone. Intuitively I think it is easier to make the connection that this random buddy might be wrong, rather than thinking the encyclopedia is wrong. Casualness might serve to reduce the tendency to think of the output as actual truth.
- gizajob 11mo ago
  Sam Altman probably can’t handle any GPT models that don’t ass lick to an extreme degree so they likely get nerfed before they reach the public.
Wololooo 11mo ago
Again, if they had anything worth in the pipeline, Sora wouldn't have been a thing...
xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verifying the sources requires reading them, so you don't save any time.
- kenjackson 11mo ago
  Don’t search engines have the same problem? You don’t get back a list of sites that the engine didn’t prefer for some reason.
  - skywhopper 11mo ago
    With search engine results you can easily see and judge the quality of the sources. With LLMs, even if they link to sources, you can’t be sure they are accurately representing the content. And once your own mind has been primed with the incorrect summary, it’s harder to pull reality out of the sources, even if they’re good (or even relevant — I find LLMs often pick bad/invalid sources to build the summary result).
    - xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
      Exactly. I've gotten much more interested by LLM now that i've accepted I can just look at the final result (code) without having to read any of the justification wall of text, which is generally convincing bullshit. It's like working with a very cheap, extremely fast, dishonest and lazy employee. You can still get them to help you but you have to check them all the time.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  I agree a lot with the first part, the only time I actually feel productive with them is when I can have a short feedback cycle with 100% proof if it's correct or not, as soon as "manual human verification" is needed, things spiral out of control quickly. > Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. You can prompt for that though, include something like "Include all the sources you came across, and explain why you think it was irrelevant" and unsurprisingly, it'll include those. I've also added a "verify_claim" tool which it is instructed to use for any claims before sharing a final response, checks things inside a brand new context, one call per claim. So far it works great for me with GPT-OSS-120b as a local agent, with access to search tools.
  - 11mo ago
chud37 11mo ago
Its very frustating that it can't be relied upon. I was asking gemini this morning about Uncharted 1,2 and 3 if they had a remastered version for the PS5. It said no. Then 5 minutes later I on the PSN store there were the three remastered versions for sale.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jollyllama 11mo ago
While I wouldn't strain the analogy, a wolfdog is more capable but people love lapdogs.
ceejayoz 11mo ago
> My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. That tracks; it's what's expected of human customer service, too. Call a large company for support and you'll get the same sort of tone.
underlipton 11mo ago
People have been using, "It's what the [insert Blazing Saddles clip here] want!" for years to describe platform changes that dumb down features and make it harder to use tools productively. As always, it's a lie; the real reason is, "The new way makes us more money," usually by way of a dark pattern. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Be overly suspicious and let them walk you back to trust (that's their job).

by Quarrel 11mo ago

intended 11mo ago

We know they are using it like search - there’s a jigsaw paper around this.

torben-friis 11mo ago

I’m of two minds about this. The ass licking is dangerous to our already too tight information bubbles, that part is clear. But that aside, I think I prefer a conversational/buddylike interaction to an encyclopedic tone. Intuitively I think it is easier to make the connection that this random buddy might be wrong, rather than thinking the encyclopedia is wrong. Casualness might serve to reduce the tendency to think of the output as actual truth.

gizajob 11mo ago
Sam Altman probably can’t handle any GPT models that don’t ass lick to an extreme degree so they likely get nerfed before they reach the public.

Wololooo 11mo ago

Again, if they had anything worth in the pipeline, Sora wouldn't have been a thing...

xmcqdpt2 11mo ago

LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verifying the sources requires reading them, so you don't save any time.

kenjackson 11mo ago
Don’t search engines have the same problem? You don’t get back a list of sites that the engine didn’t prefer for some reason.
- skywhopper 11mo ago
  With search engine results you can easily see and judge the quality of the sources. With LLMs, even if they link to sources, you can’t be sure they are accurately representing the content. And once your own mind has been primed with the incorrect summary, it’s harder to pull reality out of the sources, even if they’re good (or even relevant — I find LLMs often pick bad/invalid sources to build the summary result).
  - xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
    Exactly. I've gotten much more interested by LLM now that i've accepted I can just look at the final result (code) without having to read any of the justification wall of text, which is generally convincing bullshit. It's like working with a very cheap, extremely fast, dishonest and lazy employee. You can still get them to help you but you have to check them all the time.
embedding-shape 11mo ago
I agree a lot with the first part, the only time I actually feel productive with them is when I can have a short feedback cycle with 100% proof if it's correct or not, as soon as "manual human verification" is needed, things spiral out of control quickly. > Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. You can prompt for that though, include something like "Include all the sources you came across, and explain why you think it was irrelevant" and unsurprisingly, it'll include those. I've also added a "verify_claim" tool which it is instructed to use for any claims before sharing a final response, checks things inside a brand new context, one call per claim. So far it works great for me with GPT-OSS-120b as a local agent, with access to search tools.
- 11mo ago

chud37 11mo ago

Its very frustating that it can't be relied upon. I was asking gemini this morning about Uncharted 1,2 and 3 if they had a remastered version for the PS5. It said no. Then 5 minutes later I on the PSN store there were the three remastered versions for sale.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

jollyllama 11mo ago

While I wouldn't strain the analogy, a wolfdog is more capable but people love lapdogs.

ceejayoz 11mo ago

> My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. That tracks; it's what's expected of human customer service, too. Call a large company for support and you'll get the same sort of tone.

underlipton 11mo ago

People have been using, "It's what the [insert Blazing Saddles clip here] want!" for years to describe platform changes that dumb down features and make it harder to use tools productively. As always, it's a lie; the real reason is, "The new way makes us more money," usually by way of a dark pattern. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Be overly suspicious and let them walk you back to trust (that's their job).