3 ms·

I’m not anthropomorphizing. I’ve been in many situation where the AI wrote some code some way and I had to ask why, it told me why and then we moved on to bette

I’m not anthropomorphizing. I’ve been in many situation where the AI wrote some code some way and I had to ask why, it told me why and then we moved on to better solutions as needed. Better if it just wrote the code and its reasoning was still in context, but even if it’s not, it can usually reverse engineer what it wrote well enough. Then it’s a conversation about whether there is a better clearer way to do it, the code improves. It sounds like you either have access to bad models or you are just imagining what it’s like to use an LLM in this way and haven’t actually tried asking it why it wrote something. The only judgement you need to make is the explanation makes sense or not, not some technical or theoretical argument about where the tokens in the explanation come from. You just ask questions until you can easily verify things for yourself. Also, pretending that the LLM is still just token predicting and isn’t bringing in a lot of extra context via RAG and using extra tokens for thinking to answer a query is just way out there.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
chmod775 8mo ago
You just steamrolled on, pretty much ignoring the comment you are replying to, made unkind assumptions, and put words in my mouth to boot. I don't mind some aggressive argumentation, but this misses the mark so completely that I have really no idea how to have a constructive conversation this way. > where the AI wrote some code some way and I had to ask why, it told me why I just explained that it cannot tell you why. It's simply not how they work. You might as well tell me that it cooked you dinner and did your laundry. > the code improves. We can agree on this. The iterative process works. The understanding of it is incorrect. If someone's understanding of a hammer superficially is "tool that drives pointy things into wood", they'll inevitably try to hammer a screw at some point - which might even work, badly. > It sounds like you either have access to bad models or you are just imagining what it’s like to use an LLM in this way Quoting this is really enough. You may imagine me sighing. > Also, pretending that the LLM is still just token predicting Strawman. Overall your comment is dancing around engaging with what is being said, so I will not waste my time here.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

chmod775 8mo ago

You just steamrolled on, pretty much ignoring the comment you are replying to, made unkind assumptions, and put words in my mouth to boot. I don't mind some aggressive argumentation, but this misses the mark so completely that I have really no idea how to have a constructive conversation this way. > where the AI wrote some code some way and I had to ask why, it told me why I just explained that it cannot tell you why. It's simply not how they work. You might as well tell me that it cooked you dinner and did your laundry. > the code improves. We can agree on this. The iterative process works. The understanding of it is incorrect. If someone's understanding of a hammer superficially is "tool that drives pointy things into wood", they'll inevitably try to hammer a screw at some point - which might even work, badly. > It sounds like you either have access to bad models or you are just imagining what it’s like to use an LLM in this way Quoting this is really enough. You may imagine me sighing. > Also, pretending that the LLM is still just token predicting Strawman. Overall your comment is dancing around engaging with what is being said, so I will not waste my time here.