Hacker News Reader

Comment by ablation | Hacker News Reader

"I think you just need to accept the results of the competition. The winning submissions clearly provide value and had a lot of effort invested in them. I'm not really worried about a few inconsistencies or mistakes if the value is still there. Did you think another submission deserved to win over these?"

That comment is gold. Yeah, I'm not worried about hallucinated slop, just accept it was the winner folks.

View on HN

We've had about a century now of science-fiction literature hyping up AI as a higher intelligence that is based solely on some ill-defined yet universal system of "logic" and is therefore not prone to human flaws such as pride, hate, envy, lust, etc. Now it has become extremely apparent that was always an unsubstantiated assumption but its too late because there are billions of people primed to never question the machine.

I really don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

People interact with AI, talking to it like a human. Of course they start to believe it’s rational like a human.

LLM does all of the entry level tasks better than the students. Partially because the answers are in the training set, and partially because it has gotten that good now. Hard not to start to believe it is “competent”.

I personally have had a real hard time getting traction talking about making sure the way we assess AI is not based on material it has trained on. YMMV as always, but I think the large training corpus contributes to the (unreasonably) high level of faith in the machine.

A lot of philosophy starts from the fundamental observation that, to solve a problem, you could either solve a problem, or state that the problem is ill-posed in some way (and dissolve it). Either answer the question, or question the question.

It's not a new problem in some sense. If you've dealt with really smart but really arrogant friends, they might jump ahead 10 steps and assume your rebuttal, posit theirs, assume your rebuttal to their posit, etc. etc. without... actually taking the time to listen carefully. On the national scale, this looks like forced trust in government authorities about what is "objectively best".

People need to get it through their skulls that, even if an AI, or any intelligence, could even solve the damn Riemann Hypothesis: if it's wrong, it's wrong. Of course, I think all of us know the objection - we see it on hackernews all the time. "You guys are just stupid contrarians who can't understand AI's deep reasoning". OK. The second inference? "therefore you are unable to govern yourselves properly - your concerns are all fallacies, misunderstandings, bad for you, etc.".

You might think that the second inference is extreme and nobody actually believes that, but as always, it's a gradient. Before AI, you might've had an extremely strong sense of self. Now? You look at OpenAI solving open math problems left and right on a public foundation model, and you think, "Maybe I should just trust it more. If I spend cycles thinking, it's probably going to outdo me anyways." The AI model silently makes 5 different assumptions and transformations? "Well, maybe it was rational in the space of tradeoffs to do that. The AI knows best, after all". You might be thinking of an architecture with 5 different key constraints based on lived experience, in which the AI keeps misunderstanding. "Oh, well, this genius-level mathematician/programmer AI isn't understanding my words - surely I must be mistaken, right? It's only humble to think that way".

I can't convince people otherwise though. After all, I can't "prove" that you should have a backbone when talking to AI. it could just as easily be "you're arrogant, this machine is in the top of all academic fields and is coming for all white collar jobs, who's to say you're right about anything?" All I can say is, there's a reason why Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors.

Aside from all the stories where AI does exactly what it was told to instead of what the creators meant? Apart form them, never underestimate British humour's ability to contradict narratives of competence*:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxWQo_vZgR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfvPHCVMp0

* artificial, political, workplace, nothing is beyond mockery

In Dune we never learned what exactly went down in the butlerian jihad. Perhaps it was worse than idiocracy and the galaxy became monumentally stupid for an eon or two, rather than a bloodthirsty Terminator scenario.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune:_The_Butlerian_Jihad

Ah, I’m a purist and didn’t like the extended volumes by his son. Obviously I didn’t read it but the plot summary sounds painfully pedestrian. Was it good and I’m just being a snob?

FWIW I think the more salient learned behavior is 40 years of using calculators / desktops / laptops / smartphones which were basically 99.9999% reliable at retrieving text and doing computations. It is very hard to undo the learning of "the computer is a machine designed to be accurate."

That right there is the mentality that is going to drive me into a hole. Engineers are already grumpy enough dealing with asinine human bullshit that doesn't translate into reality. Seeing blatant slop judged by blatant slop (and it is, in this case, extremely blatant on both ends) and then saying "geez if you're criticising this you must be butt-hurt, move on" is so mind-blowingly frustrating. Like you can't even start to reason with someone like that. Yes, the author of the comments clearly believes other submissions made sense and engaged in good faith with the competition parameters, and that those deserve to win. Are we stupid?

We tried! In good faith! We put a lot of time into articulating ourselves clearly! We even pretended to be nice, reminding ourselves to be charitable and that we might be missing something! And like... it's normal every once in awhile for someone to opine dumbly, but when it's all the time and the perpetrators are people who just do not care that they are spewing glorified Bayes-slop into the universe and then being rewarded for it by people who both can't tell the difference and don't understand why that's a problem... we all get really tired, really quickly, and we want to disengage.

Personally I have zero tolerance for this kind of lazy-ass approach to reality. I'm seeing it increasingly at work. I'm seeing it increasingly in corpo sludge. I'm seeing it increasingly in social interactions. I'm seeing it explode on social media. I want to engage in life-affirming activities with people who have actual minds that they cultivate and use. I will not waste precious time and attention on communities that tolerate slop. If you want me to care, communicate with me in good faith. I don't think we should be kind or forgiving about it. Kaggle got exactly one strike on this, now they're dead to me forever. Same with open source contributors. Same with content creators. Out of basic ethics I need to give multiple strikes to employees who report to me (and hold myself accountable for their actions first), but exactly one strike for leadership above. Trust is precious. We need to hold one another accountable. If that burns some bridges so be it. Enough is enough and we do in fact know better.

Sounds like that comment about economic value from earlier this week (yesterday?)

What comment?

I can't stand this "if it provides value, that's all that matters" attitude. We could also try to avoid being useful idiots for a small handful of investor-darling corporations that have explicitly stated they seek to monopolize the market and put us all out of business/jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com