I learned from experience at least a decade ago that you should not take anything he says seriously or as an assertion of fact. Countless examples[0] prove that this is the case.
Musk stating that read-only scroll should be allowed seems very sensible (I think we all agree on that). But he (or someone he delegated to) clearly changed their mind. Intrigued to know why. Occam's razor would probably suggest that allowing scrapers to host twitter posts elsewhere costs them ad revenue, so they make it difficult.
Grok 4.0, before it deteriorated, had a phase when it was good at writing tweets. The feature was used by Musk sycophants but it becomes boring soon.
Since Grok is closed now too and Cursor is pivoting to octocnt (GitHub clone), nobody knows where things are heading.
It is only clear with hindsight, but now everyone knows that tweets are literally detrimental for LLM style AI for whatever reason. Personally I think it's because tweets are responses without CoT or prompts, or could be also because all its meat is in the shape incompatible with en-US culture, even when it's in English, though all that matters is it's actively useless.
You know, LLM hallucination is a phenomenon where the AI would generate syntactically bulletproof chunks of text that are not grounded in reality. Lots of efforts by frontier LLM labs had been made in past few years to solve this by enabling AIs to refute premises in the prompt.
Ordinary people still need to be instructed to google stuffs. They don't go to a niche de facto non-American social media to be disappointed by its notoriously bad search to then conclude its notoriously dumb AI can be abused as a makeshift search tool. People are simply unable.
Twitter has been doing so much things backwards lately. That's reminiscent of how hallucination hurts whatever you do with AIs.
Remember when you were a kid, your teacher probably told you "At an exam, leave no question unanswered, even if you don't know what to write. Nobody is penalised for wrong answers, but even total gibberish might sometimes add a half-point to your score".
To the extent that an LLM generates something factual or realistic, it's doing so either accidentally, or because of the various band-aids that the grandparent post describes which will never fully solve the problem.
99% of people learn by memorising facts, not by testing reality.
Do you have a source for this? I vehemently disagree.
> 99% of people learn by memorising facts, not by testing reality.
I disagree with this too, but whether or not it’s true, LLMs don’t learn via either of these methods, so it’s not relevant to the discussion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/onud4u/anon_research...
>I disagree with this too, but whether or not it’s true, LLMs don’t learn via either of these methods, so it’s not relevant to the discussion.
Em... I think it is relevant. In my mental model, an LLM is basically a giant hash table, so memorizing is about 90% of what it does.
I didn’t ask for a proof, I asked for a source, and it is not obvious to me. Your claim is that “humans are just as hallucinatory [as LLMs] when speaking about pretty much anything other than their flat or kids.” This is a quite an outlandish claim to make given that LLMs hallucinate literally every single thing they produce; as I said previously they have no concept of “truth,” or “fact.”
> https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/onud4u/anon_research
I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with this link but posting an image of an anonymous message board with people using ableist slurs is not a great look.
I have spoken to janitors and taxi drivers and had great intellectual conversations with many of them. Are you trying to say that they aren’t as smart on average as a Y Combinator employee? Because I’ve met some pretty stupid YC employees.
> Em... I think it is relevant. In my mental model, an LLM is basically a giant hash table, so memorizing is about 90% of what it does.
You specifically said “memorizing facts,” which an LLM definitely does not do at all.
But as I said, I also disagree with your assertion. Pretty much the entire first several years of a child’s life consists solely of learning through testing reality, and we continue to test reality in other ways as we grow. And to say that 99% of people learn by any single method seems obviously false; we all learn through several different methods, depending on our brains and the particular situation at hand, and a portion of the learning that every person does is via testing reality.
I'll summarize my position in case you're confused:
* You said that humans are just as hallucinatory as LLMs when speaking about anything other than their flat or kids, and I think this is incorrect, because LLMs don't model "facts" at all.
* So even if a human you're conversing with is purely reciting memorized facts back to you and not actually creatively thinking or "testing reality" at all (which, I repeat, is a wild claim), that person would not in any way be hallucinating in the same way an LLM does.
* You then claimed that 99% of people learn by memorizing facts, not by testing reality. I think this is false on its face for multiple reasons, the most obvious one being that humans learn in varied, complex ways, and so it's nonsensical to treat a person as only being able to learn via a single method.
Where did I go wrong? I'm happy to be set straight with facts/sources if I'm incorrect.
Pick any topic in which misinformation is spread by crackpots. (Especially a topic that is not "policed" by the system prompt). Ask questions using terminology, phrases and ideas that the crackpots use, and you will tend to get crackpot answers; the AI will confirm crackpot theories, backd by links to crackpot forum posts.
What we have is a technology that can reproduce sentences that are grammatical with a very high probability, paragraphs that are coherent with a high probability and true with a lower probability if all the input training data is true. Then, true with an even lower probability when the input data contains vast numbers of untrue sentences, as is the case for all the mainstream, cloud-hosted AI public offerings.
LLMs are doing what they are expected to be doing -- imitating humans, and they are very good at it, because humans are essentially doing the same thing -- imitating other humans. Kids imitate their parents, students imitate their teachers, employers imitate their boss, fans imitate their popstar.
It's hard to even have this conversation, because it's so bloody obvious that it is hard to understand why this even needs an explanation.
Just remember when was the last time you actually read the manual for a program rather than tried to fit your use-case into an example.
Generating original content and understanding anything from the first principles is not just hard, it's prohibitively hard. Nobody learns arithmetic by reading a book on Peano arithmetic, people just imagine putting some apples in a pot, which is the same principle -- analogy/ imitation.
Many people believe in crackpot theories, therefore an LLM has to faithfully imitate them.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/12/elon-musk-admits-he-only-b...
Later, when he realized that this was a stupid idea and that his amazing business acumen resulted in him drastically overpaying, he tried to back out of the sale by giving the excuse that the number of bots/spam posts/etc were more than he thought. According to the agreement that he had signed, this was not a valid reason to back out of the deal. His lawyers advised him that he’d probably lose in court, hence he was “forced to” buy the site as your article states.
That’s putting it quite charitably, IMO.
> but rational on product decisions
Hard disagree. You only need to look to his entire tenure at DOGE for literally hundreds (thousands?) of counterexamples.
Or, if you don’t count that work as “product decisions,” there are other highly questionable product decisions that he is responsible for: the rear doors on the Model X; the lack of instruments/gauges of any kind in front of the driver on the Model 3 and Y; the lack of proper safety sensors/protection for the hood of the Cybertruck, leading to mangled fingers; that stupid yoke steering wheel; and the entirety of Neuralink (just to name a handful).
Now, on the flipside, the yoke also exists in the Tesla Model S Plaid, which has a traditional manual rack. In here it is the worst god-damned thing to ever curse a vehicle. The width is roughly the diameter of a school bus steering wheel and going hand over hand with it is annoying at best and the whole experience feels like utter garbage.
Yes, as I said, bad product decisions.