(www.bbc.co.uk)

421 points sohkamyung | 1 comments | 22 Oct 25 13:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

roguecoder ◴[22 Oct 25 15:12 UTC] No.45670387[source]▶

I am curious if LLMs evangelists understand how off-putting it is when they knee-jerk rationalize how badly these tools are performing. It makes it seem like it isn't about technological capabilities: it is about a religious belief that "competence" is too much to ask of either them or their software tools.

replies(7): >>45670776 #>>45670799 #>>45670830 #>>45671500 #>>45671741 #>>45672916 #>>45673109 #

GolfPopper ◴[22 Oct 25 18:20 UTC] No.45673109[source]▶

>>45670387 #

They've conned themselves with the LLMs they use, and are desperate to keep the con going: "The LLMentalist Effect: how chat-based Large Language Models replicate the mechanisms of a psychic’s con"

https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/llmentalist/

replies(1): >>45674584 #

1. tim333 ◴[22 Oct 25 20:15 UTC] No.45674584[source]▶

>>45673109 #

I had a look at that and am not convinced

>people are convinced that language models, or specifically chat-based language models, are intelligent... But there isn’t any mechanism inherent in large language models (LLMs) that would seem to enable this...

and says it must be a con but then how come they pass most of the exams designed to test humans better than humans do?

And there are mechanisms like transformers that may do something like human intelligence.

↑

AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time