←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: 0.2s | 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. coldtea ◴[08 Dec 25 15:36 UTC] No.46193456[source]▶
>The basic design is non-deterministic. Trying to extract "facts" or "truth" or "accuracy" is an exercise in futility

We ourselves are non-deterministic. We're hardly ever in the same state, can't rollback to prior states, and we hardly ever give the same exact answer when asked the same exact question (and if we include non-verbal communication, never).