←back to thread

The "confident idiot" problem: Why AI needs hard rules, not vibe checks

(steerlabs.substack.com)
323 points steerlabs | 1 comments | 04 Dec 25 20:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
jqpabc123 ◴[04 Dec 25 21:38 UTC] No.46153440[source]▶
We are trying to fix probability with more probability. That is a losing game.

Thanks for pointing out the elephant in the room with LLMs.

The basic design is non-deterministic. Trying to extract "facts" or "truth" or "accuracy" is an exercise in futility.

replies(17): >>46155764 #>>46191721 #>>46191867 #>>46191871 #>>46191893 #>>46191910 #>>46191973 #>>46191987 #>>46192152 #>>46192471 #>>46192526 #>>46192557 #>>46192939 #>>46193456 #>>46194206 #>>46194503 #>>46194518 #
1. raincole ◴[08 Dec 25 14:24 UTC] No.46192557[source]▶
This very repo is just to "fix probability with more probability."

> The next time the agent runs, that rule is injected into its context. It essentially allows me to “Patch” the model’s behavior without rewriting my prompt templates or redeploying code.

What a brainrot idea... the whole post being written by LLM is the icing on the cake.