←back to thread

323 points steerlabs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
keiferski ◴[] No.46192154[source]
The thing that bothers me the most about LLMs is how they never seem to understand "the flow" of an actual conversation between humans. When I ask a person something, I expect them to give me a short reply which includes another question/asks for details/clarification. A conversation is thus an ongoing "dance" where the questioner and answerer gradually arrive to the same shared meaning.

LLMs don't do this. Instead, every question is immediately responded to with extreme confidence with a paragraph or more of text. I know you can minimize this by configuring the settings on your account, but to me it just highlights how it's not operating in a way remotely similar to the human-human one I mentioned above. I constantly find myself saying, "No, I meant [concept] in this way, not that way," and then getting annoyed at the robot because it's masquerading as a human.

replies(37): >>46192230 #>>46192268 #>>46192346 #>>46192427 #>>46192525 #>>46192574 #>>46192631 #>>46192754 #>>46192800 #>>46192900 #>>46193063 #>>46193161 #>>46193374 #>>46193376 #>>46193470 #>>46193656 #>>46193908 #>>46194231 #>>46194299 #>>46194388 #>>46194411 #>>46194483 #>>46194761 #>>46195048 #>>46195085 #>>46195309 #>>46195615 #>>46195656 #>>46195759 #>>46195794 #>>46195918 #>>46195981 #>>46196365 #>>46196372 #>>46196588 #>>46197200 #>>46198030 #
jodrellblank ◴[] No.46192800[source]
> LMs don't do this. Instead, every question is immediately responded with extreme confidence with a paragraph or more of text.

Having just read a load of Quora answers like this, which did not cover the thing I was looking for, that is how humans on the internet behave and how people have to write books, blog posts, articles, documentation. Without the "dance" to choose a path through a topic on the fly, the author has to take the burden of providing all relevant context, choosing a path, explaining why, and guessing at any objections and questions and including those as well.

It's why "this could have been an email" is a bad shout. The summary could have been an email, but the bit which decided on that being the summary would be pages of guessing all the things which what might have been in the call and which ones to include or exclude.

replies(3): >>46193463 #>>46193796 #>>46195969 #
1. jtr1 ◴[] No.46193796[source]
Interesting. Like many people here, I've thought a great deal about what it means for LLMs to be trained on the whole available corpus of written text, but real world conversation is a kind of dark matter of language as far as LLMs are concerned, isn't it? I imagine there is plenty of transcription in training data, but the total amount of language use in real conversational surely far exceeds any available written output and is qualitatively different in character.

This also makes me curious to what degree this phenomenon manifests when interacting with LLMs in languages other than English? Which languages have less tendency toward sycophantic confidence? More? Or does it exist at a layer abstracted from the particular language?