HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | tempacct2cmmnt's commentslogin

I checked out at

“ This week is our argument for that claim, and we are making it in code rather than in prose.”


I think it’s particularly infuriating when you sit down, and decide to read something off the reputation of an author (or their institution), only to find out that their writing has a complete disregard for your attention and time…


I did spot two errors in the text:

> With agents, research per projects have become easy and quick.

Either my English is failing me or that is a weird sentence.

And then there is 'wee' in

> If you ask me what a small lab can do today, wee will show you three things:

Which I'm more confident is an error.


My problem was more that it seemed to start with one thesis, and then throughout the article took long detours to market other achievements and then managed to not say very much at the end...


It is common now to insert typos or spelling mistakes to “prove” it is not LLM written


If that's the case here it would be a really low low.


Doctor:

I don’t mind the questions. I mind the assertions of fact.


Agreed. Given how many significant errors LLMs make in my topic of expertise, despite my taking multiple error checking steps, the idea of catching 100% of hallucinations because you told the LLM to check itself is hilarious. It’s just a wild lack of insight: “I’m using the LLM to teach me something I don’t know about, I definitely have the knowledge base to spot any errors that might remain!”


Yeah. People with technical and/or tech business bonafides claiming that AI granted them expertise are so often taken at face value when they really shouldn’t be. Who told them that they were proficient — a chatbot? Someone who knows even less about the topic, so any expertise seems impressive? I’ll bet it wasn’t someone that actually knew what they were talking about. Even some tech reporters are tripping over themselves to be amazed, but don’t bother checking if they should be.

People don’t even have to be lying to be wrong about this stuff. Someone can learn enough about a topic to be halfway up Mt. Stupid in no time flat, and in doing so, think they not only truly understand the topic at hand, but might be particularly adept because they were such quick studies. People that know less are impressed, because why wouldn’t they be? Anybody that knows more than them sounds like an expert. And people that know what they’re talking about cringe at the overconfidence, and probably try not to engage: who wants to have to prove that someone’s boundless confidence is entirely baseless? Most of the time, they think the actual expert is full of shit because they think they’re the expert. It’s incredible how many times I’ve had people in tech confidently, even smugly “explain” design concepts and strategies to me that they did not actually understand, knowing I was an experienced, degree-holding designer… and they didn’t even have a chatbot’s lips on their ass telling them how smart and insightful they were.


I’m mostly amused they dropped this after the clusterfuck that was their new desktop app. My most recent ChatGPT experience is “wait, where did all my conversations go?!”. Concurrent enshitiffication is a bold move.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: