tovej

17 ms·

301.
by tovej 8mo ago
Jesus Christ. This man is just a sociopath who doesn't bother to mask anymore.
302.
by tovej 8mo ago
Why are you taking the LLM-hallucinated version of the argument as truth? I even clearly stated how the LLM-version of my claim is a misunderstood version of the argument. Do you remember the point we're arguing? That a human can under
303.
by tovej 8mo ago
You cannot claim that a formulaic thesaurusing of a text is parody, not unless the process is related to the message of the original text itself. Even then, that's a dubious claim. Especially if it was done automatically. I can just as
304.
by tovej 8mo ago
Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word? Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's no
305.
by tovej 8mo ago
There is no actual short story behind the link? moon_landing_turpeinen.md cannot be opened. You could not have done better? Love it. You didn't even bother rewriting my post before pasting it into the box. The post isn't addressed
306.
by tovej 8mo ago
You most definitely did contradict yourself. First you said you don't prove anything about the code you write, then you said you do. But that's fine. We can agree to disagree. And I have not made any statements about how you use L
307.
by tovej 8mo ago
This one is even easier. LLMs record objective data about n-gram distribution, there is no room for any "subjective state" in their working set. Or another way: an LLM will respond the same way if you wait for one second or a deca
308.
by tovej 8mo ago
Easy, humans can synthesize new facts using logic and context. And the conclusions can be checked against the real world to check that the reasoning was correct. Or another way: reasoning is a socially constructed concept, developed by huma
309.
by tovej 8mo ago
Because the entire point is the LLM cannot understand text about text. If someone has already done the work of giving an example of how to produce text according to a process, we have no way of knowing if the LLM has followed the process or
310.
by tovej 8mo ago
Yes, what I said should be falsifiable. The burden is on you to give me an example, but I can give you an idea. You need to show me an LLM applying writing techniques do not have examples in its corpus. You would have to use some relatively
311.
by tovej 8mo ago
You can understand his biography and analyses about how shakespeare might have written. You can apply this knowledge to modify your writing process. The LLM does not model text at this meta-level. It can only use those texts as examples, it
312.
by tovej 8mo ago
You completely misunderstood what I wrote. It was a response to you saying: "Im not going around trying to prove my code correct when I write it manually." How did you manage to forget what you wrote previously? Also, in this post
313.
by tovej 8mo ago
Because a "world model" for relative positions in space is just a partial ordering of points. That's not really a world model.
314.
by tovej 8mo ago
I write code to solve a problem. Not code that looks like it solves the problem if a non-technical client squints at it. And if you don't prove your code, do you not design at all then? Do you never draw state diagrams? Every design is
315.
by tovej 8mo ago
One conference proceeding paper and one preprint, about LLMs encoding either relative geometric information of objects or simple 2D paths. One of the papers call this "programming language semantics", but it is using a 2D grid nav
316.
by tovej 8mo ago
It doesn't have to be either because the burden of proof is not on me. It's on whoever claims that chaining multiple prompts together produces thinking, even though a single prompt is just predicting n-grams. The chain does not ch
317.
by tovej 8mo ago
Because they don't. The chain-of-reasoning feature is really just a way to get the LLM to prompt more. The fact that it generates these "thinking" steps does not mean it is using them for reasoning. It's most useful effe
318.
by tovej 8mo ago
Could you please cite these papers. If by AI you mean LLMs, that is not supported by what I know. If you mean a theoretical world-model-based AI, that's just a tautological statement.
319.
by tovej 8mo ago
Assuming this is not a rhetorical question: no, it is not. The only "goal" is to maximize plausibility.
320.
by tovej 8mo ago
I have to strongly disagree. I've met people who have never been in touch with organized religion. They generally have excellent ethical frameworks. I've also read the bible, it does not have a consistent moral or ethical framewor
321.
by tovej 8mo ago
I see, so the LLM was generating text _in_ the DSL. Makes sense.
322.
by tovej 8mo ago
I'm in the groups I am because I like the people and what they're doing. I don't generally hang out with people because I expect it to benefit me.
323.
by tovej 8mo ago
You are overstating those sources. That alone makes me doubt that you're engaging in this discussion in good faith. I read them all, and in none of them do any of the three say that they "regularly use LLMs for development".
324.
by tovej 8mo ago
They really aren't that mysterious. We can confidently say that they function at the lexical level, using Monte Carlo principles to carve out a likely path in lexical space. The output depends on the distribution of n-grams in the trai
325.
by tovej 8mo ago
You're just strawmanning now. I've prompted extremely well-specced, contained features, and the LLM has failed nonetheless. In fact, the more details I give it about a specific problem, the more it seems to hallucinate. Presumably
326.
by tovej 8mo ago
That's not true. Most people are interested in fostering a community, even when it means sacrifice. There _have_ however been studies that show that this attitude is prevalent in (neoclassical) economics students and others who are exp
327.
by tovej 8mo ago
That is not at all what I said, please read my post more carefully before speculating. I am talking about using LLMs in general, not for boiler plate specifically. My point about boilerplate is that I have tools that solve this for me alrea
328.
by tovej 8mo ago
I can assure you I give LLMs all the information they need. Including hints to what kind of solution to use. They still fail.
329.
by tovej 8mo ago
As someone who has implemented a fair few DSLs, lexical and syntactic analysis is pretty much the same anywhere, and the structure of the lexer/parser does not really depend on the grammar of the language. And even semantic analysis is
330.
by tovej 8mo ago
I am prompting better. It doesn't help the LLM be more productive than me on a regular tuesday. Sure, I can get the task done by delegating everything to an agentic workflow, but it just adds a bunch of useless overhead to my work. I s

More ›