Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jacamera's commentslogin

Lots of hair splitting in the comments. The service is so unreliable at this point that I don’t trust them to not train on private repos even accidentally. You’re one vibe-coded PR away from having all your data scooped up regardless of any policy or intention.

I can't even imagine what these exams would look like. The entire profession seems to boil down to making the appropriate tradeoffs for your specific application in your specific domain using your specific tech stack. There's almost nothing that you always should or shouldn't do.

All engineering professions are like that. NCEES has been licensing Professional Engineers for over a hundred years. The only thing stopping CS/SE is an unwillingness to submit to anything resembling oversight.

Results over time are important. Or at least they should be.



Interested to see how this plays out. ESPN is the only reason I subscribe to YouTubeTV.


interesting, isn't there cheaper ways to watch ESPN? I have youtube tv and i could care less if they ever bring it back...tho i do want monday night nfl games


Exactly! All LLMs do is “hallucinate”. Sometimes the output happens to be right, same as a broken clock.


I find this way of looking at LLMs to be odd. Surely we all are aware that AI has always been probabilistic in nature. Very few people seem to go around talking about how their binary classifier is always hallucinating, but just sometimes happens to be right.

Just like every other form of ML we've come up with, LLMs are imperfect. They get things wrong. This is more of an indictment of yeeting a pure AI chat interface in front of a consumer than it is an indictment of the underlying technology itself. LLMs are incredibly good at doing some things. They are less good at other things.

There are ways to use them effectively, and there are bad ways to use them. Just like every other tool.


The problem is they are being sold as everything solutions. Never write code / google search / talk to a lawyer / talk to a human / be lonely again, all here, under one roof. If LLM marketing was staying in its lane as a creator of convincing text we'd be fine.


This happens with every hype cycle. Some people fully buy into the most extreme of the hype, and other people reverse polarize against that. The first group ends up offsides because nothing is ever as good as the hype, but the second group often misses the forest for the trees.

There's no shortcut to figuring out what the truth of what a new technology is actually useful for. It's very rarely the case that either "everything" or "nothing" is the truth.


I think a lot of problems will be solved by explicitly training on high quality content and probably injecting some expert knowledge in addition


Yeah but that's not easy, which is why it wasn't done in any of the cases where it's needed.


>I find this way of looking at LLMs to be odd.

It's not about it being perfect or not. It's about how they come about with the responses they do.

>Very few people seem to go around talking about how their binary classifier is always hallucinating, but just sometimes happens to be right.

Yeah, but no one is anthropomorphizing binary classifiers.


You imply that, like a stopped clock, LLMs are only right occasionally and randomly. Which is just nonsense.


Although I get what you're saying, it's still true that if something is wrong randomly at any point, it is always "randomly wrong".


It's true, though. It strings together plausible words using a statistical model. If those words happen to mean something, it's by chance.


Sure, but that chance might be 99.7%. 'Random' isn't a pejorative.


Same is true of humans fwiw.


I blame the experts. It's their responsibility to explain things to the public and engage in forums that the public is paying attention to (e.g. podcasts). They don't have to bloviate about everything under the sub, but they do have to be able to break down and communicate their ideas to the non-expert public. Failure to do so creates a vacuum that is filled by the Marc Andreesens and Peter Thiels of the world.


If you go on Marc’s Twitter he spends most of his time subtweeting with emojis and one word responses. And he has millions of followers (for what reason?).

A scientist, aside from their day job, is now also supposed to spend time debunking whatever half baked topic of the day is?

The only world where that works is one in which MA’s reputation is built on not saying dumb stuff all the time, like a scientist’s reputation is. If his follower count dropped for example. But it’s not, and that’s not how it works. People like him will move on to the next thing tomorrow.


I've gone on a science communication podcast to talk about my work: https://braininspired.co/podcast/202/

This does not seem to have stopped anyone bullshitting to the media about AI.


Absolutely not. That turns the experts into politicians and pundits. Experts should stay in their lane and provide accurate and trustworthy information.

Yes, it should be accessible and digestible, but should not be pushed.


Yeah I definitely struggle with this. You need downtime to relax but it's easy to "over relax" just like it's easy to oversleep or overeat or overdo any other number of things that are healthy and necessary but only at the right amplitude and frequency. I think that's why it can feel so good to be in a rhythm. You get a nice oscillation going that rides the wave of momentum instead of some monotonic rise or fall that is going to lead to burnout or stagnation.


This is the first time I've heard anyone argue that a food product must be good for you because Americans are consuming a large amount of it. How on earth could you come to that conclusion given how unhealthy our population is?


"good for you" and "not meaningfully harmful" are different things. Please don't move the goalpost.


Have you ever tried the LeetCode live competitions? I found those to be really fun with a great community. Just grinding problems in isolation can definitely be depressing.


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

Search: