Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 13 hours ago

But, and this is an important but, it suggests a problem with people... not with LLMs.

▲

lazide 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Which part? That people are susceptible to bullshit is a problem with people?

Nothing is not susceptible to bullshit to some degree!

For some reason people keep running LLMs are ‘special’ here, when really it’s the same garbage in, garbage out problem - magnified.

▲

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 13 hours ago | parent [-]

If the problem is magnified, does it not confirm that the limitation exists to begin with and the question is only of a degree? edit:

in a sense, what level of bs is acceptable?

▲

lazide 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this.

Ideally (from a scientific/engineering basis), zero bs is acceptable.

Realistically, it is impossible to completely remove all BS.

Recognizing where BS is, and who is doing it, requires not just effort, but risk, because people who are BS’ing are usually doing it for a reason, and will fight back.

And maybe it turns out that you’re wrong, and what they are saying isn’t actually BS, and you’re the BS’er (due to some mistake, accident, mental defect, whatever.).

And maybe it turns out the problem isn’t BS, but - and real gold here - there is actually a hidden variable no one knew about, and this fight uncovers a deeper truth.

There is no free lunch here.

The problem IMO is a bunch of people are overwhelmed and trying to get their free lunch, mixed in with people who cheat all the time, mixed in with people who are maybe too honest or naive.

It’s a classic problem, and not one that just magically solves itself with no effort or cost.

LLM’s have shifted some of the balance of power a bit in one direction, and it’s not in the direction of “truth justice and the American way”.

But fake papers and data have been an issue before the scientific method existed - it’s why the scientific method was developed!

And a paper which is made in a way in which it intentionally can’t be reproduced or falsified isn’t a scientific paper IMO.

	▲	A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		<< I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this. I read the paper and I was interested in the concepts it presented. I am turning those around in my head as I try to incorporate some of them into my existing personal project. What I am trying to say is that I am currently processing. In a sense, this forum serves to preserve some of that processing. << And a paper which is made in a way in which it intentionally can’t be reproduced or falsified isn’t a scientific paper IMO. Obligatory, then we can dismiss most of the papers these days, I suppose. FWIW, I am not really arguing against you. In some ways I agree with you, because we are clearly not living in 'no BS' land. But I am hesitant over what the paper implies.