←back to thread

1479 points sandslash | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
OJFord ◴[] No.44324130[source]
I'm not sure about the 1.0/2.0/3.0 classification, but it did lead me to think about LLMs as a programming paradigm: we've had imperative & declarative, procedural & functional languages, maybe we'll come to view deterministic vs. probabilistic (LLMs) similarly.

    def __main__:
        You are a calculator. Given an input expression, you compute the result and print it to stdout, exiting 0.
        Should you be unable to do this, you print an explanation to stderr and exit 1.
(and then, perhaps, a bunch of 'DO NOT express amusement when the result is 5318008', etc.)
replies(10): >>44324398 #>>44324762 #>>44325091 #>>44325404 #>>44325767 #>>44327171 #>>44327549 #>>44328699 #>>44328876 #>>44329436 #
aaron695[dead post] ◴[] No.44325404[source]
[flagged]
bgwalter ◴[] No.44326722[source]
> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills?

Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it takes over people's minds.

replies(2): >>44326752 #>>44327102 #
infecto ◴[] No.44327102[source]
Sounds like you’re taking crazy pills.

Far to early from any of the studies done so far to come to your conclusion.

replies(2): >>44327371 #>>44341212 #
bgwalter ◴[] No.44327371[source]
The LLM proponents are so desperate now that they have to resort to personal insults. Are investors beginning to realize the scam?
replies(2): >>44327481 #>>44327809 #
infecto ◴[] No.44327481{3}[source]
It’s strange how often criticism gets deflected with claims of personal attack. You’re citing a study that doesn’t say anything close to what you’re claiming. You’re fabricating conclusions that simply aren’t there.
replies(1): >>44327585 #
bgwalter ◴[] No.44327585{4}[source]
I quoted zero studies in the comment you respond to and had no intentions of doing so. I quoted a study as well as personal observations under duress after a citation demand appeared.
replies(1): >>44327663 #
1. infecto ◴[] No.44327663{5}[source]
I honestly have no idea what point you’re trying to make now. You opened with bold claims and zero evidence, then acted like being asked for a citation was some kind of duress. If you’re going to assert sweeping conclusions, expect to be challenged. That’s not an attack, it’s basic discourse.