Yes, I fail to see anything meaningful. If you move the goalposts and say “I have invented a human that cannot be convinced in any way to give a wrong answer” then what’s the point of that in this discussion, really?
And you seem confused about how an LLM works and what it is - “the intelligence of all humanity” - not how it works. You’re debating using 2 imaginary things you created.
Hit them with a stick until they answer as you told them to.
I think the post up-thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49881653, was trying to make this point by linking to an episode of Star Trek TNG, with Picard being tortured until he said the "correct" (incorrect) number of lights.
(I recommend against using fiction as evidence; in this case the general point happens to be valid, and is why torture is forbidden: we humans really do break, but breaking doesn't mean we tell the truth, it means we tell people what we think they want to hear).
> Obviously, for this purpose, human should not have any feelings (because LLMs don't have), so can't feel pain. Or else the comparison can't work.
Other than this forcing you to ignore the overwhelming majority of humans who have functioning pain nerves:
LLMs have something functionally equivalent to pain, in this regard at least.
During training, model weights are updated depending on if the feedback was positive or negative.
It has a functional effect similar to that which pleasure and pain have with us. Not identical, so far as I know there's not been any reports of any machine learning model that is into BDSM, but for the most part functionally similar.
There is also research which has found circuits in multiple LLM models, which serve similar roles at inference time and are distinct from other emotional representations: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16247
> You see this already, LLMs are a lot more reliable in statically typed languages with strong memory guarantees (like typescript or rust) than in weaker languages.
It’s common advice to wire in deterministic feedback to your workflow with LLMs - static languages aren’t inherently better for LLMs, it’s that LLMs produce better code when given deterministic feedback, such as compiler results.
Yes, this was my point, formal proof static analysis makes LLM output better. Therefor a language with far higher requirements on formal proofing (to the point it becomes very difficult for humans to understand) might end up being better to use by an LLM.
Of course it is not that simple as a large part of how effective LLMs are is due to training data which is hard to get for a new language.
Not the case in Notepad, Edge, RegEdit, Windows Settings, MS Teams, Firefox on Windows, Bruno, Windows Search. Where exactly did you experience this? All aforementioned were tested in Windows 11
Apparently the definition of clear is debatable here? It’s ridiculous to think a mechanic would pay people to damage gas tanks in the hopes of drumming up business.
This isn't “I will play it my way”; its heres a BS reason why legitimate critique can be dismissed out of hand.
“Oh, but for me its not about of the food tastes good”
Ok. Sure. You do You.
…but if someone says: that meal was rubbish and tasteless, is it so outrageous to call out “but I don't care about the taste” as incomprehensible nonsense to the majority of people?
You can keep coming up with flawed analogies all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that a good RPG video game is a LOT more than a story.
Is is possible to enjoy the characters, gameplay, strategy, battle system, graphics, and music of a game while caring next to nothing at all about the story. I played a LOT of 16 and 32-bit RPGs in my day and found the stories and character dialogue in nearly all of them to be predictable to the point of cliche. There are rarely any unique plot elements to get invested in, rarely any characters who break out of their mold.
If you've seen one Hero's Journey, you've pretty much seen them all. But obviously you can still build a damn fine movie or video game around it.
(FWIW, I like coding but don't get very excited about algorithms or data structures. They are just tools to use on the way to making something useful in the real world.)
There is more than one thing to enjoy about anything and yes, someone may enjoy aspects you aren’t even aware of even if they don’t enjoy the aspect you think of as the core aspect.
You brought up the subject of food, but not everyone even agrees that taste is the most important element. For some it’s the social aspect of the meal. For some it’s the nutritional value. Some may only tolerate the taste of something but enjoy the texture or the warm feeling in their belly. People can also eat things they don’t enjoy but be glad they did for the experience of just trying that thing.
It isn’t outrageous that you don’t understand it. It does imply that you’re blind to all the other aspects of games that bring people enjoyment. You personally would probably be better off not trying to defend this and instead trying to understand the views others have. You could just ask the poster what he does care about in games.
> It does imply that you’re blind to all the other aspects of games that bring people enjoyment.
Like what?
I’m not making a sweeping generalisation here about how people play games. We’re talking about chrono cross.
For a story driven JRPG like CT / CC specifically, if you don’t care about the characters or story, there is no reason to achieve any goal in the game.
I’m not so proud I can’t admit to being wrong; but in a JRPG there is no game without the character driven story. If you imagine replacing Kid and Serge with cardboard cutouts labeled A-san and B-san, what are you enjoying about the game?
I can’t speak for the poster and I haven’t played that game, but I’ve played other JRPGs.
Here’s a list of some of the things I can enjoy in a game, JRPG or otherwise, that aren’t necessarily story or character related: technical details/neat hacks, novelty, atmosphere, gameplay/battle/magic/weaponsystems, exploration, finding secrets/special items, level design, enemy and boss design and fights, cinematography (framing, contrast, …), immersion, design elements, collecting things, trying to break the game, talking about the game with others, connection and comparison with other games and media, translation, acting, my mental reaction (turning my brain off/lighting it up) …
If someone revealed to you that they enjoyed "You are a shark" as much as "Cave of Time", and after inquiring you learned that they don't read the page, they just skip to the decision, and backtrack if they get a The End:
Did they enjoy the game? If there are enough of these type 2 readers should the industry start catering to them over legacy type 1 page readers?
The point is that it doesn’t matter, they enjoyed it. The fun police weren’t invited to do an investigation, no matter what scenario or analogy is applied.
reply