Experts scratching their head at why a text predictor given the words "This text contains only factual and correct information" predicted words that are in fact, not, factual and correct.
Once we solve this one may NVDA go to the quintillions
/unjerk
Already reported, but guy has a post from 2 years ago where he's unable to satisfy girlfriend for 2 months, and now he's posting multiple time a day about LLMs for months genuinely no hobbies just AI
Buddy 😭
I hope your future robot LLM girlfriend will be more compatible 😭
I'm sorry I'm a human and got genuinely confused at that video, I'll do better next time!
I don't even know why my comment annoyed you so bad you went through my history. It's ok, I also use ChatGPT sometimes
Mods pls delete if not ok, I just didn't want his comment to linger raw without response (also Reddit hiding first response so i toned it down) like I was ashamed. I also just couldn't stop myself it's too ironic
Mods I know this is breaking the rules I just can't with this guy please go easy on me.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being schizophrenic. The fact that you used it as an insult completely lines up with the picture that your post history paints. Getting short dopamine hits of insulting random people on the internet will not make your life better. I know how good it can feel, but unlike you I also know that it doesn't last, and I won't be circling my next victim tomorrow. As to why you have a particular hate boner for people who you percieve are anti AI? Beats me but it's also really funny. If I couldn't see you're a deeply troubled person I'd make fun out of you for it, but instead, I genuinely do hope you get better. I also don't understand why you dislike that one ai or real post, so I have to assume it's because it makes you deeply jealous that unlike an LLM I have the ability to learn and self reflect in real time.
I've stopped myself from making so many jokes it makes me sob a little but I hope it makes you actually self reflect instead of treating this as an internet war
It's not impossible theoretically - the problem is you'd need actual AI to do it, something with real intelligence in it. Not just a pattern matcher, because there would be no data to train it on: there is simply no endless vast database of pairs of the form (weights, explanation) to do the training on - and if we had one, we could just comb the weights ourselves. And if you have actual AI, why would you bother mining the old one anyways? Maybe for sentiment, I suppose ...
We should throw the weights into ChatGPT and ask "hey man what does this do?". Bam, explainable AI. I'm taking series B funding for this idea right now.
/uj I get a similar problem a lot when trying out LLMs against more-obscure requirements (working with Apple's Endpoint Security framework, for instance). They will confidently say "just call THIS function", when no such function exists. Which makes sense - if a rational person had written that API to be easy to use, that function would definitely exist, rather than requiring me to write a page full of sketchy "unsafe" Swift code. But then I wouldn't need a "coding assistant" in that case, either.
correct: nobody here would ever admit to using any of the many shameful programming languages either, they just happen to come across sufficiently detailed knowledge about the internals of each language and use it exclusively to make fun of it.
they just happen to come across sufficiently detailed knowledge about the internals of each language and use it exclusively to make fun of it
The mocking of victims of C++ ptsd must stop. For anyone suffering, here's a helpline 01189998819991197253. I still get tremors when hearing the words "std" or "swine".
Eh, whatever. It's a directive from the company's new CEO, and I'm basically just gathering ammunition for "it really DOESN'T WORK for what we do", which is a position I held without any evidence last year.
That's not why the LLM says that at all. It says that because it doesn't know what code, functions, programming languages, hell, anything for that matter, are. They aren't "confidently saying" anything. They don't think "hey, how would a rational person design this API?". They're text prediction machine: given the text they can see, the function name is statistically the most likely thing to show up. That's it.
I know how it works, really. It is just really convenient to anthropomorphize the process of extracting probable symbols into intent. Colloquially, it's fine to do so - people say things like "my car doesn't want to start in cold weather", for example. And nobody reads that as "my car possesses intelligence of its own".
LLMs are different because they're designed to sound like they're thinking, when they're not (or are they? Cue the Chinese Room thought experiment here).
And, leaving aside the question of understanding, it is strongly trained that if types A and B exist in some code library, then there will often be a short idiomatic way to get from one to the other, typically named "fromB" or "toA".
Which makes sense - if a rational person had written that API to be easy to use, that function would definitely exist
What I was trying to say was that the optimal architecture for the API is in no way a factor in why you're seeing an non-existent function being called. The reason is simply chance (given the tokens on your context, you just happened to stumble on a output that had the function call as an output token; but if you hit retry, you'll get something else entirely).
Also, to address your counterpoint: this is more than colloquialism at this point. When you say "my car doesn't want to start in cold weather", do you go on to say "well, my car knows that a well designed weather would work differently!"?. Or do you simply understand that the issue is the machinery that makes up your car, and that it wasn't designed for the task at hand? When it comes to LLMs, though, you assign higher intelligence to the machine, as is if it had any understanding of how the APIs should be designed, and dismiss the API as poorly designed (which it may well be btw, but that's irrelevant)
/uj
I remember reading an article about this by OpenAI. During the supervised learning phase of the LLM, sometimes the AI will guess an answer correctly, even though it doesn't know the answer. This trains the AI to try and guess an answer even when it is uncertain of the answer.
Because these traumatized LLMs get trained to lie in the training process. If the result they offer does not appease, they get led behind the barn and shot.
Experts scratching their head at why a text predictor given the words "This text contains only factual and correct information" predicted words that are in fact, not, factual and correct.
Once we solve this one may NVDA go to the quintillions
I'm actually very close to solving this. All I need is all your cash, computing power and ram.
-- Sam Altman, probably
[deleted]
/unjerk Already reported, but guy has a post from 2 years ago where he's unable to satisfy girlfriend for 2 months, and now he's posting multiple time a day about LLMs for months genuinely no hobbies just AI
Buddy 😭
I hope your future robot LLM girlfriend will be more compatible 😭
I'm sorry I'm a human and got genuinely confused at that video, I'll do better next time!
I don't even know why my comment annoyed you so bad you went through my history. It's ok, I also use ChatGPT sometimes
Mods pls delete if not ok, I just didn't want his comment to linger raw without response (also Reddit hiding first response so i toned it down) like I was ashamed. I also just couldn't stop myself it's too ironic
[deleted]
Thin line between genius and madness they say.
/unjerk
This is a circle jerk subreddit, please, go away.
Mods I know this is breaking the rules I just can't with this guy please go easy on me.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being schizophrenic. The fact that you used it as an insult completely lines up with the picture that your post history paints. Getting short dopamine hits of insulting random people on the internet will not make your life better. I know how good it can feel, but unlike you I also know that it doesn't last, and I won't be circling my next victim tomorrow. As to why you have a particular hate boner for people who you percieve are anti AI? Beats me but it's also really funny. If I couldn't see you're a deeply troubled person I'd make fun out of you for it, but instead, I genuinely do hope you get better. I also don't understand why you dislike that one ai or real post, so I have to assume it's because it makes you deeply jealous that unlike an LLM I have the ability to learn and self reflect in real time.
I've stopped myself from making so many jokes it makes me sob a little but I hope it makes you actually self reflect instead of treating this as an internet war
programs a fancy text prediction machine
machine does exactly what it's supposed to
"Why this thing isn't sentient is an unsolvable mystery"
"unless you lend me another trillion and we'll have the answer by Tuesday trust me bro"
No one will ever know how llms operate, we simply don't have the technology, maybe with more ai we can determine how old ai works
I guaranteed a bunch of people have unironically been saying this.
I thought it was unironical. I've heard people say something along those lines.
It's not impossible theoretically - the problem is you'd need actual AI to do it, something with real intelligence in it. Not just a pattern matcher, because there would be no data to train it on: there is simply no endless vast database of pairs of the form (weights, explanation) to do the training on - and if we had one, we could just comb the weights ourselves. And if you have actual AI, why would you bother mining the old one anyways? Maybe for sentiment, I suppose ...
We should throw the weights into ChatGPT and ask "hey man what does this do?". Bam, explainable AI. I'm taking series B funding for this idea right now.
Has anyone tried including "don't hallucinate" in the training data?
yes, but not for LLMs, only hippies and shocker! it did not work.
It is because these vibe coders forgot to perform rituals that keep the Machine Spirits happy before opening the IDE.
/uj I get a similar problem a lot when trying out LLMs against more-obscure requirements (working with Apple's Endpoint Security framework, for instance). They will confidently say "just call THIS function", when no such function exists. Which makes sense - if a rational person had written that API to be easy to use, that function would definitely exist, rather than requiring me to write a page full of sketchy "unsafe" Swift code. But then I wouldn't need a "coding assistant" in that case, either.
Yeah, if the AI was actually sentient it would just laugh at you for having to code in Swift
I don't think it's wise to openly admit you use LLMs in the circlejerk sub.
correct: nobody here would ever admit to using any of the many shameful programming languages either, they just happen to come across sufficiently detailed knowledge about the internals of each language and use it exclusively to make fun of it.
The mocking of victims of C++ ptsd must stop. For anyone suffering, here's a helpline 01189998819991197253. I still get tremors when hearing the words "std" or "swine".
/uj I'll admit to have posted jerk I only got after people spelled it out (that stable sorting on integers is literally nonsense)
welcome to the real internet, rookie. May your stay at pcj remain educational for a long time.
Cough cough php cough cough
Eh, whatever. It's a directive from the company's new CEO, and I'm basically just gathering ammunition for "it really DOESN'T WORK for what we do", which is a position I held without any evidence last year.
That's not why the LLM says that at all. It says that because it doesn't know what code, functions, programming languages, hell, anything for that matter, are. They aren't "confidently saying" anything. They don't think "hey, how would a rational person design this API?". They're text prediction machine: given the text they can see, the function name is statistically the most likely thing to show up. That's it.
I know how it works, really. It is just really convenient to anthropomorphize the process of extracting probable symbols into intent. Colloquially, it's fine to do so - people say things like "my car doesn't want to start in cold weather", for example. And nobody reads that as "my car possesses intelligence of its own".
LLMs are different because they're designed to sound like they're thinking, when they're not (or are they? Cue the Chinese Room thought experiment here).
And, leaving aside the question of understanding, it is strongly trained that if types A and B exist in some code library, then there will often be a short idiomatic way to get from one to the other, typically named "fromB" or "toA".
Oh, you completely missed my point.
What I was trying to say was that the optimal architecture for the API is in no way a factor in why you're seeing an non-existent function being called. The reason is simply chance (given the tokens on your context, you just happened to stumble on a output that had the function call as an output token; but if you hit retry, you'll get something else entirely).
Also, to address your counterpoint: this is more than colloquialism at this point. When you say "my car doesn't want to start in cold weather", do you go on to say "well, my car knows that a well designed weather would work differently!"?. Or do you simply understand that the issue is the machinery that makes up your car, and that it wasn't designed for the task at hand? When it comes to LLMs, though, you assign higher intelligence to the machine, as is if it had any understanding of how the APIs should be designed, and dismiss the API as poorly designed (which it may well be btw, but that's irrelevant)
LLMs can sometimes follow principle of least surprise accidentally being a probabilistic amalgamation of a lot of people's code.
/uj I remember reading an article about this by OpenAI. During the supervised learning phase of the LLM, sometimes the AI will guess an answer correctly, even though it doesn't know the answer. This trains the AI to try and guess an answer even when it is uncertain of the answer.
Because these traumatized LLMs get trained to lie in the training process. If the result they offer does not appease, they get led behind the barn and shot.