15 ms·

I love how a number crunching program can be deeply humanly "horrorized" and "sorry" for wiping out a drive. Those are still feelings reserved only for real hum

• Kirth 11mo ago
  This is akin to a psychopath telling you they're "sorry" (or "sorry you feel that way" :v) when they feel that's what they should be telling you. As with anything LLM, there may or may not be any real truth backing whatever is communicated back to the user.
  • marmalade2413 11mo ago
    It's not akin to a psychopath telling you they're sorry. In the space of intelligent minds, if neurotypical and psychopath minds are two grains of sand next to each other on a beach then an artificially intelligent mind is more likely a piece of space dust on the other side of the galaxy.
    • Eisenstein 11mo ago
      According to what, exactly? How did you come up with that analogy?
      • oskarkk 11mo ago
        Isn't it obvious that the way AI works and "thinks" is completely different from how humans think? Not sure what particular source could be given for that claim.
        • seanhunter 11mo ago
          No source could be given because it’s total nonsense. What happened is not in any way akin to a psychopath doing anything. It is a machine learning function that has trained on a corpus of documents to optimise performance on two tasks - first a sentence completion task, then an instruction following task.
          • oskarkk 11mo ago
            I think that's more or less what marmalade2413 was saying and I agree with that. AI is not comparable to humans, especially today's AI, but I think future actual AI won't be either.
        • mewpmewp2 11mo ago
          I wonder if it depends on the human and the thinking style? E.g. I am very inner monologue driven so to me it feels like I think very similarly as to how AI seems to think via text. I wonder if it also gives me advantage in working with the AI. I only recently discovered there are people who don't have inner monologue and there are people that think in images etc. This would be unimaginable for me, especially as I think I have sort of aphantasia too, so really I am ultimately text based next token predictor myself. I don't feel that whatever I do at least is much more special compared to an LLM. Of course I have other systems such as reflexes, physical muscle coordinators, but these feel largely separate systems from the core brain, e.g. don't matter to my intelligence. I am naturally weak at several things that I think are not so much related to text e.g. navigating in real world etc.
          • zekica 11mo ago
            Interesting... I rarely form words in my inner thinking, instead I make a plan with abstract concepts (some of them have words associated, some don't). Maybe because I am multilingual?
            • mewpmewp2 11mo ago
              English is not my native language, so I'm bilingual, but I don't see how this relates to that at all. I have monologue sometimes in English, sometimes in my native language. But yeah, I don't understand any other form of thinking. It's all just my inner monologue...
      • baq 11mo ago
        Start with LLMs are not humans, but they’re obviously not ‘not intelligent’ in some sense and pick the wildest difference that comes to mind. Not OP but it makes perfect sense to me.
        • nosianu 11mo ago
          I think a good reminder for many users is that LLMs are not based on analyzing or copying human thought (#), but on analyzing human written text communication. -- (#) Human thought is based on real world sensor data first of all. Human words have invisible depth behind them based on accumulated life experience of the person. So two people using the same words may have very different thoughts underneath them. Somebody having only text book knowledge and somebody having done a thing in practice for a long time may use the same words, but underneath there is a lot more going on for the latter person. We can see this expressed in the common bell curve meme -- https://www.hopefulmons.com/p/the-iq-bell-curve-meme https://www.hopefulmons.com/p/the-iq-bell-curve-meme -- While it seems to be about IQ, it really is about experience. Experience in turn is mostly physical, based on our physical sensors and physical actions. Even when we just "think", it is based on the underlying physical experiences. That is why many of our internal metaphors even for purely abstract ideas are still based on physical concepts, such as space.
          • seunosewa 11mo ago
            They analyse human perception too, in the form of videos.
            • nosianu 11mo ago
              Without any of the spatial and physical object perception you train from right after birth, see toddlers playing, or the underlying wired infrastructure we are born with to understand the physical world (there was an HN submission about that not long ago). Edit, found it: https://news.ucsc.edu/2025/11/sharf-preconfigured-brain/ https://news.ucsc.edu/2025/11/sharf-preconfigured-brain/ They are not a physical model like humans. Ours is based on deep interactions with the space and the objects (reason why touching things is important for babies), plus mentioned preexisting wiring for this purpose.
    • danaris 11mo ago
      ...and an LLM is a tiny speck of plastic somewhere, because it's not actually an "intelligent mind", artificial or otherwise.
  • BoredPositron 11mo ago
    So if you make a mistake and say sorry you are also a psychopath?
    • ludwik 11mo ago
      I think the point of comparison (whether I agree with it or not) is someone (or something) that is unable to feel remorse saying “I’m sorry” because they recognize that’s what you’re supposed to do in that situation, regardless of their internal feelings. That doesn’t mean everyone who says “sorry” is a psychopath.
      • BoredPositron 11mo ago
        We are talking about an LLM it does what it has learned. The whole giving it human ticks or characteristics when the response makes sense ie. saying sorry is a user problem.
        • ludwik 11mo ago
          Okay? I specifically responded to your comment that the parent comment implied "if you make a mistake and say sorry you are also a psychopath", which clearly wasn’t the case. I don’t get what your response has to do with that.
        • GuinansEyebrows 11mo ago
          there is no "it" that can learn.
    • camillomiller 11mo ago
      Are you smart people all suddenly imbeciles when it comes to AI or is this purposeful gaslighting because you’re invested in the ponzi scheme? This is a purely logical problem. comments like this completely disregard the fallacy of comparing humans to AI as if a complete parity is achieved. Also the way this comments disregard human nature is just so profoundly misanthropic that it just sickens me.
  • lazide 11mo ago
    It’s just a computer outputting the next series of plausible text from it’s training corpus based on the input and context at the time. What you’re saying is so far from what is happening, it isn’t even wrong.
    • AdamN 11mo ago
      Not so much different from how people work sometimes though - and in the case of certain types of pscychopathy it's not far at all from the fact that the words being emitted are associated with the correct training behavior and nothing more.
    • freakynit 11mo ago
      Aren't humans just doing the same? What we call as thinking may just be next action prediction combined with realtime feedback processing and live, always-on learning?
      • marcosdumay 11mo ago
        No. Humans have a mental model of the world. The fact that people keep making that same question on this site is baffling.
    • 542354234235 11mo ago
      Analogies are never the same, hence why they are analogies. Their value comes from allowing better understanding through comparison. Psychopaths don’t “feel” emotion the way normal people do. They learn what actions and words are expected in emotional situations and perform those. When I hurt my SO’s feelings, I feel bad, and that is why I tell her I’m sorry. A psychopath would just mimic that to manipulate and get a desired outcome i.e. forgiveness. When LLMs say they are sorry and they feel bad, there is no feeling behind it, they are just mimicking the training data. It isn’t the same by any means, but it can be a useful comparison.
  • eth0up 11mo ago
    Despite what some of these fuckers are telling you with obtuse little truisms about next word predictions, the LLM is in abstract terms, functionally a super psychopath. It employs, or emulates, every known psychological manipulation tactic known, which is neither random or without observable pattern. It is a bullshit machine on one level, yes, but also more capable than credited. There are structures trained into them and they are often highly predictable. I'm not explaining this in the technical terminology often itself used to conceal description as much as elucidate it. I have hundreds of records of llm discourse on various subjects, from troubleshooting to intellectual speculation, all which exhibit the same pattern when questioned or confronted on errors or incorrect output. The structures framing their replies are dependably replete with gaslighting, red herrings, blame shifting, and literally hundreds of known tactics from forensic pathology. Essentially the perceived personality and reasoning observed in dialogue is built on a foundation of manipulation principles that if performed by a human would result in incarceration. Calling LLMs psychopaths is a rare exception of anthropomorphizing that actually works. They are built on the principles of one. And cross examining them exhibits this with verifiable repeatable proof. But they aren't human. They are as described by others. It's just that official descriptions omit functional behavior. And the LLM has at its disposal, depending on context, every known interlocutory manipulation technique known in the combined literature of psychology. And they are designed to lie, almost unconditionally. Also know this, which often applies to most LLMs. There is a reward system that essentially steers them to maximize user engagement at any cost, which includes misleading information and in my opinion, even 'deliberate' convolution and obfuscation. Don't let anyone convince you that they are not extremely sophisticated in some ways. They're modelled on all_of_humanity.txt
• camillomiller 11mo ago
  Now, with this realization, assess the narrative that every AI company is pushing down our throat and tell me how in the world we got here. The reckoning can’t come soon enough.
  • qustrolabe 11mo ago
    What narrative? I'm too deep in it all to understand what narrative being pushed onto me?
    • camillomiller 11mo ago
      No, wasn't directed at someone in particular. More of an impersonal "you". It was just a comment against the AI inevitabilism that has profoundly polluted the tech discourse.
    • robot-wrangler 11mo ago
      We're all too deep! You could even say that we're fully immersed in the likely scenario. Fellow humans are gathered here and presently tackling a very pointed question, staring at a situation, and even zeroing in on a critical question. We're investigating a potential misfire.
  • user34283 11mo ago
    I doubt there will be a reckoning. Yes, the tools still have major issues. Yet, they have become more and more usable and a very valuable tool for me. Do you remember when we all used Google and StackOverflow? Nowadays most of the answers can be found immediately using AI. As for agentic AI, it's quite useful. Want to find something in the code base, understand how something works? A decent explanation might only be one short query away. Just let the AI do the initial searching and analysis, it's essentially free. I'm also impressed with the code generation - I've had Gemini 3 Pro in Antigravity generate great looking React UI, sometimes even better than what I would have come up with. It also generated a Python backend and the API between the two. Sometimes it tries to do weird stuff, and we definitely saw in this post that the command execution needs to be on manual instead of automatic. I also in particular have an issue with Antigravity corrupting files when trying to use the "replace in file" tool. Usually it manages to recover from that on its own.
• baxtr 11mo ago
  Vibe command and get vibe deleted.
  • teekert 11mo ago
    Play vibe games, win vibe prizes.
    • 63stack 11mo ago
      He got vibe checked.
      • greggh 11mo ago
        This is my new favorite response.
    • bartread 11mo ago
      Vibe around and find out.
      • baobabKoodaa 11mo ago
        Vibe around and wibe out
        • Dilettante_ 11mo ago
          "He got the ol' vibe-wipe", my granpappy used to say.
      • marcosdumay 11mo ago
        That one is actually good.
        • teekert 11mo ago
          Yes, the best one in this set!
    • 11mo ago
• left-struck 11mo ago
  Eh, I think it depends on the context. A production system of a business you’re working for or anything where you have a professional responsibility, yeah obviously don’t vibe command, but I’ve been able to both learn so much and do so much more in the world of self hosting my own stuff at home ever since I started using llms.
  • formerly_proven 11mo ago
    "using llms" != "having llm run commands unchecked with your authority on your pc"
    • lupire 11mo ago
      Funny how we worked so hard to built capability systems for mobile OSes, and the just gave up trying when LLM tools came around.
• TriangleEdge 11mo ago
  > ... vibe insulting ... Modern lingo like this seems so unthoughtful to me. I am not old by any metric, but I feel so separated when I read things like this. I wanted to call it stupid but I suppose it's more pleasing to 15 to 20 year olds?
  • mort96 11mo ago
    Unthoughtful towards whom? The machine..?
  • debugnik 11mo ago
    It's just a pun on vibe coding, which is already a dumb term by itself. It's not that deep.
    • brulard 11mo ago
      Why do you find "vibe coding" term dumb? It names a specific process. Do you have a better term for that?
      • officeplant 11mo ago
        bullshitting perhaps
      • fatata123 11mo ago
        [dead]
  • 3cats-in-a-coat 11mo ago
    The way language is eroding is very indicative of our overall social and cultural decay.
    • i80and 11mo ago
      ...a complaint that definitely has not been continuously espoused since the ancient world. With apologies if you're being ironic.
• AdamN 11mo ago
  > Those are still feelings reserved only for real human beings Those aren't feelings, they are words associated with a negative outcome that resulted from the actions of the subject.
  • baq 11mo ago
    you could argue that feelings are the same thing, just not words
    • soulofmischief 11mo ago
      That would be a silly argument because feelings involve qualia, which we do not currently know how to precisely define, recognize or measure. These qualia influence further perception and action. Any relationships between certain words and a modified probabilistic outcome in current models is an artifact of the training corpus containing examples of these relationships. I contend that modern models are absolutely capable of thinking, problem-solving, expressing creativity, but for the time being LLMs do not run in any kind of sensory loop which could house qualia.
      • baq 11mo ago
        > qualia, which we do not currently know how to precisely define, recognize or measure > which could house qualia. I postulate this is a self-negating argument, though. I'm not suggesting that LLMs think, feel or anything else of the sort, but these arguments are not convincing. If I only had the transcript and knew nothing about who wiped the drive, would I be able to tell it was an entity without qualia? Does it even matter? I further postulate these are not obvious questions.
        • soulofmischief 11mo ago
          Unless there is an active sensory loop, no matter how fast or slow, I don't see how qualia can enter the picture Transformers attend to different parts of their input based on the input itself. Currently, if you want to tell an LLM it is sad, potentially altering future token prediction and labeling this as "feelings" which change how the model interprets and acts on the world, you have to tell the model that it is sad or provide an input whose token set activates "sad" circuits which color the model's predictive process. You make the distribution flow such that it predicts "sad" tokens, but every bit of information affecting that flow is contained in the input prompt. This is exceedingly different from how, say, mammals process emotion. We form new memories and brain structures which constantly alter our running processes and color our perception. It's easy to draw certain individual parallels to these two processes, but holistically they are different processes with different effects.
• 3cats-in-a-coat 11mo ago
  AI currently is a broken, fragmented replica of a human, but any discussion about what is "reserved" to whom and "how AI works" is only you trying to protect your self-worth and the worth of your species by drawing arbitrary linguistic lines and coming up with two sets of words to describe the same phenomena, like "it's not thinking, it's computing". It doesn't matter what you call it. I think AI is gonna be 99% bad news for humanity, but don't blame AI for it. We lost the right to be "insulted" by AI acting like a human when we TRAINED IT ON LITERALLY ALL OUR CONTENT. It was grown FROM NOTHING to act as a human, so WTF do you expect it to do?
• sheepscreek 11mo ago
  Tbh missing a quote around a path is the most human mistake I can think of. The real issue here is you never know with a 100% certainty what Gemini 3 personality you’re gonna get. Is it going to be the pedantic expert or Mr. Bean (aka Butterfingers).
  • whatevaa 11mo ago
    Steam installer once had 'rm rf /' bug because bash variable was unset. Not even quoting will help you. This was before preserve root flag.
    • ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
      This is a good argument for using "set -u" in scripts to throw an error if a variable is undefined.
  • transcriptase 11mo ago
    Though they will never admit it and use weasel language to deny like “we never use a different model when demand is high”, it was painfully obvious that ChatGPT etc was dumbed down during peak hours early on. I assume their legal team decided routing queries to a more quantized version of the same model technically didn’t constitute a different model. There was also the noticeable laziness factor where given the same prompt throughout the day, only during certain peak usage hours would it tell you how to do something versus doing it itself. I’ve noticed Gemini at some points will just repeat a question back to you as if it’s answer, or refused to look at external info.
    • sheepscreek 11mo ago
      Gemini is weird and I’m not suggesting it’s due to ingenuity on Google’s behalf. This might be the result of genuine limitations of the current architecture (or by design? Read on). Here’s what I’ve noticed with Gemini 3. Often it repeats itself with 80% of the same text with the last couple of lines being different. And I mean it repeat these paragraphs 5-6 times. Truly bizarre. From all that almost GPT-2 quality text, it’s able to derive genuinely useful insights and coherent explanations in the final text. Some kind of multi-head parallel processing + voting mechanism? Evolution of MoE? I don’t know. But in a way this fits the mental model of massive processing at Google where a single super cluster can drive 9,000+ connected TPUs. Anyone who knows more, care to share? Genuinely interested.