buu700

16 ms·

211.
by buu700 1y ago
So my anecdotal theory is that the (public) education system is optimized to the edges, abandoning the middle entirely, resulting in majority decline. Based on my anecdotal experience, this is the explanation that makes the most sense to
212.
by buu700 1y ago
I discovered that feature by accident while doing some testing with an iOS device, and found it concerning. IIRC it wasn't too difficult to disable, but it really should be opt-in.
213.
by buu700 1y ago
You could always buy two and swap them out.
214.
by buu700 1y ago
Agreed. I think we're all relieved at the harm that wasn't caused by this, but the attacker was almost certainly more motivated by profit than harm. Having a bunch of credentials stolen en masse would be a pain in the butt for the
215.
by buu700 1y ago
To add to your point, both article titles are questions that start with "What if". The same person could have written both and there would be no contradiction.
216.
by buu700 1y ago
That's pretty neat. It sounds like a better version of Mark's idea from Peep Show: Nancy: Bad news, bad news, bad news. Jesus, Jeremy, one bus crash. What about all the buses that made it safely to their destinations, huh? Jeremy:
217.
by buu700 1y ago
It's a pretty safe assumption. Models and tooling are still improving on a regular basis, and most people haven't even used LLM chatbots, much less mastered them. Don't forget that we're talking about an extremely novel
218.
by buu700 1y ago
It's a standard punctuation mark available on Android/iOS/macOS keyboards, and automatically inserted into text by widely used software such as Microsoft Word. You guys are acting like it's an obscure Unicode character t
219.
by buu700 1y ago
Define "hard to master". I use LLMs all the time, sometimes as a writing assistant, and have never had the problem of trying to pass off a GPT response to a single one-line prompt as my own words. I haven't found LLMs hard to
220.
by buu700 1y ago
"Should be fairly low" isn't a safe assumption without robust data to back that up. I think it's more likely to be unacceptably high. Dashes are standard punctuation marks available through Android/iOS/macOS ke
221.
by buu700 1y ago
The comment you're replying to isn't related to the topic of heuristics. The first part is explicitly an answer to a question concerning a future prediction.
222.
by buu700 1y ago
Feel free to state your point clearly without the juvenile insults, if you have one.
223.
by buu700 1y ago
That's fair. It's not like I don't pay attention to it myself. It's more that I wouldn't never use presence of em dashes in the absence of any other heuristics to predict whether or not something is LLM-generated, a
224.
by buu700 1y ago
However, I’m not sure why this writing style would become increasingly common? I was basing that on a few factors, off the top of my head: 1. Someone might pick up mannerisms while using LLMs to help learn a new language, similarly to how
225.
by buu700 1y ago
I don't see that provenance matters per se. LLM-assisted writing is comparatively cheaper than producing the same writing without an LLM, but not inherently cheap in absolute terms. If someone who typically bills $500/hr spends 30
226.
by buu700 1y ago
No, I'm not wrong. Someone could easily write in the default output style of ChatGPT by hand (which will probably become increasingly common the longer that style remains in place), and someone could easily collaborate with ChatGPT on
227.
by buu700 1y ago
Citation needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash Humans can adapt faster than LLM companies No one said anything about LLM companies. If I were a spammer today, I'd just have my code replace dashes in LLM o
228.
by buu700 1y ago
Because the false positive rate is unacceptably high — we're talking about a standard, widely used character — and because if the heuristic becomes widespread enough to matter, then it will be trivially circumvented by bad actors anywa
229.
by buu700 1y ago
Right, that's part of what I'm getting at. There are two primary cases when LLM output tends to be bad: 1. In the context of research/querying, when unverified information from its output is falsely passed off as verified inf
230.
by buu700 1y ago
Having good heuristics is a valuable life skill. Presence of standard punctuation is not a good heuristic.
231.
by buu700 1y ago
Right, but that's bad writing because it's awkward to read and/or overly cliched. The fact that it may have been AI-generated is incidental. It would still be bad writing if someone happened to write in the exact same style b
232.
by buu700 1y ago
Are you implying that it's impossible to attain greater proficiency with LLM usage than one would have on their first day opening ChatGPT? The concepts of "Google-fu" and "tech literacy" must also be alien to you.
233.
by buu700 1y ago
Approximately everyone is online. What percentage of those people do you think are even familiar with the meme that em dashes == LLM assistance, much less feel strongly enough to complain or attack you over your punctuation choices?
234.
by buu700 1y ago
Just to clarify, I didn't dismiss the article. I'm agreeing with one of the author's points that we shouldn't dumb down our writing to please a vocal minority.
235.
by buu700 1y ago
Putting aside the claim that "LLM output [...] is almost always not worth reading"[1], the whole issue here is that this supposed ability of determining whether or not content is AI-generated doesn't exist. Is it really a val
236.
by buu700 1y ago
I wouldn't worry about it. A year ago the red flag du jour was "delve"; this year it's em dashes; next year it'll be something else. In any case, this is a very online topic that I assume only a vocal minority are h
237.
by buu700 1y ago
I don't have an issue quoting LLMs in and of itself, but the context and how you present it both matter. "ChatGPT says X" seems roughly equivalent to "some random blog I found claims X". There's a difference be
238.
by buu700 1y ago
https://youtu.be/W8ILPghbqdY
239.
by buu700 1y ago
Honestly, the href thing feels like a totally reasonable assumption to me. I think the API design is unfortunate, but given that the API is designed as it is, it stands to reason that the script would also halt execution upon hitting that l
240.
by buu700 1y ago
I would categorize sentient AGI as artificial consciousness[1], but I don't see an obvious reason AGI inherently must be conscious or sentient. (In terms of near-term economic value, non-sentient AGI seems like a more useful invention.

More ›