Hacker News Reader

Comment by feoren | Hacker News Reader

> The submitter knows the AI isn’t lying

You've somehow internalized something as "obvious to everyone" that's actually very wrong and dangerous about AI. Of course the AI is lying. Or, perhaps a better term would be "bullshitting", defined as "sounding convincing while having no regard for the truth". By that definition, bullshitting is all LLMs ever do.

View on HN

That's an ungenerous way of describing direct access to semantic space. gAI is creative. Rules-based AI is logical. We need them both.

But MDN's "AI Explain" is just straight LLM output, right? It's neither generative (LLMs are transformers, not GANNs, right?) nor rules-based: it's predictive. We need that too. But not for technical documentation! Not on its own!

Aye, I agree this sounds like a strange and ill-fitting implementation. And it bums me out, because the more LLMs are used incorrectly, the harder it is to get people to use them at all.

You’re worried about people not using LLM’s _enough_???

On the user side, yes. It's an uphill battle getting most of the people I know to understand and use ChatGPT.

This is a good point. The problem is that most people simply don’t care about these nuances. If the AI hallucinates or is wrong, then in their eyes it is lying.

It doesn’t matter if that opinion is wrong because its still the opinion that matters.

It may be "ungenerous" but it's accurate. Unlike the output of LLMs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com