←back to thread

265 points ctoth | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sejje ◴[] No.43744995[source]
In the last example (the riddle)--I generally assume the AI isn't misreading, rather that it assumes you couldn't give it the riddle correctly, but it has seen it already.

I would do the same thing, I think. It's too well-known.

The variation doesn't read like a riddle at all, so it's confusing even to me as a human. I can't find the riddle part. Maybe the AI is confused, too. I think it makes an okay assumption.

I guess it would be nice if the AI asked a follow up question like "are you sure you wrote down the riddle correctly?", and I think it could if instructed to, but right now they don't generally do that on their own.

replies(5): >>43745113 #>>43746264 #>>43747336 #>>43747621 #>>43751793 #
Jensson ◴[] No.43745113[source]
> generally assume the AI isn't misreading, rather that it assumes you couldn't give it the riddle correctly, but it has seen it already.

LLMs doesn't assume, its a text completer. It sees something that looks almost like a well known problem and it will complete with that well known problem, its a problem specific to being a text completer that is hard to get around.

replies(6): >>43745166 #>>43745289 #>>43745300 #>>43745301 #>>43745340 #>>43754148 #
simonw ◴[] No.43745166[source]
These newer "reasoning" LLMs really don't feel like pure text completers any more.
replies(3): >>43745252 #>>43745253 #>>43745266 #
1. jordemort ◴[] No.43745252[source]
And yet