4 ms·

Trying to get LLMs to understand bugs that I myself am stuck on has had an approximately 0% success rate for me. They're energetic "interns" that can churn out

by alecbz 8mo ago

Trying to get LLMs to understand bugs that I myself am stuck on has had an approximately 0% success rate for me. They're energetic "interns" that can churn out a lot of stuff fast but seem to struggle a lot with critical thinking.

chrisjj 8mo ago
> seem to struggle a lot with critical thinking. It is an illusion arising from anthropomorphisation. They aren't thinking at all. They are just parotting the output of thinking that has long gone.
- alecbz 8mo ago
  This feels too strong IMO. Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). Objecting to this on some kind of philosophical grounds of "being able to generalize from existing patterns isn't the same as thinking" feels like a distinction without a difference. If LLMs were better at solving complex problems I would absolutely describe what they're doing as "thinking". They just aren't, in practice.
  - chrisjj 8mo ago
    > Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think.
    - alecbz 8mo ago
      > "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation, unless you think I'm a bot. > These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think. They use the term "thinking" all the time. ---- I'm more than willing to listen to an argument that what LLMs are doing should not be considered thought, but "it doesn't have 'thought' in the name" ain't it.
      - chrisjj 8mo ago
        > Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation The result of anthromorphisation. When we treat a machine as a machine, we less need to understand it by seems and feel. > They use the term "thinking" all the time. I find not. E.g. ChatGPT: Short answer? Not like you do. Longer, honest version: I don’t think in the human sense—no consciousness, no inner voice, no feelings, no awareness. I don’t wake up with ideas or sit there wondering about stuff. What I do have is the ability to recognize patterns in language and use them to generate responses that look like thinking.
        jama211 8mo ago
        This thread is the most pathetic internet argument I’ve read in quite a while. Look at yourselves, both of you.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
jama211 8mo ago
I’m not going to take bitter advice from someone who either hasn’t used them in a long time, or is terribly bad at using them. Especially as it seems like you hate them so much. I don’t particularly like them or dislike them, they’re just tools. But saying they never work for bug fixing is just ridiculous. Feels more like you just wanted an excuse to get on your soapbox.
- alecbz 8mo ago
  It's not that they can't fix bugs at all, but I find that if I've already attempted to debug something and hit a wall, they're rarely able to help further.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jama211 8mo ago
    I guess ymmv, but it found a bug for me instantly that I was trying to find all of last night.
- chrisjj 8mo ago
  > I’m not going to take bitter advice from someone... He didn't give advice. He reported his personal experience and conclusion.
  - jama211 8mo ago
    Oh look we have a pedant. Your point doesn’t even help them though, advice was being charitable.

by alecbz 8mo ago

chrisjj 8mo ago

> seem to struggle a lot with critical thinking. It is an illusion arising from anthropomorphisation. They aren't thinking at all. They are just parotting the output of thinking that has long gone.

alecbz 8mo ago
This feels too strong IMO. Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). Objecting to this on some kind of philosophical grounds of "being able to generalize from existing patterns isn't the same as thinking" feels like a distinction without a difference. If LLMs were better at solving complex problems I would absolutely describe what they're doing as "thinking". They just aren't, in practice.
- chrisjj 8mo ago
  > Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think.
  - alecbz 8mo ago
    > "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation, unless you think I'm a bot. > These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think. They use the term "thinking" all the time. ---- I'm more than willing to listen to an argument that what LLMs are doing should not be considered thought, but "it doesn't have 'thought' in the name" ain't it.
    - chrisjj 8mo ago
      > Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation The result of anthromorphisation. When we treat a machine as a machine, we less need to understand it by seems and feel. > They use the term "thinking" all the time. I find not. E.g. ChatGPT: Short answer? Not like you do. Longer, honest version: I don’t think in the human sense—no consciousness, no inner voice, no feelings, no awareness. I don’t wake up with ideas or sit there wondering about stuff. What I do have is the ability to recognize patterns in language and use them to generate responses that look like thinking.
      - jama211 8mo ago
        This thread is the most pathetic internet argument I’ve read in quite a while. Look at yourselves, both of you.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]

jama211 8mo ago

I’m not going to take bitter advice from someone who either hasn’t used them in a long time, or is terribly bad at using them. Especially as it seems like you hate them so much. I don’t particularly like them or dislike them, they’re just tools. But saying they never work for bug fixing is just ridiculous. Feels more like you just wanted an excuse to get on your soapbox.

alecbz 8mo ago
It's not that they can't fix bugs at all, but I find that if I've already attempted to debug something and hit a wall, they're rarely able to help further.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- jama211 8mo ago
  I guess ymmv, but it found a bug for me instantly that I was trying to find all of last night.
chrisjj 8mo ago
> I’m not going to take bitter advice from someone... He didn't give advice. He reported his personal experience and conclusion.
- jama211 8mo ago
  Oh look we have a pedant. Your point doesn’t even help them though, advice was being charitable.