> Some of it is information you never had before, but are able to easily validate.
This is exactly the use case an LLM might (huge emphasis on might, depends on workflow, agentic vs. relying on contextual which can hallucinate) be good at and yet humans are notoriously bad at, because we are swayed by emotional responses and it is easy to have an emotional response to text that is programmed to look good for you and you alone.
> you communicate 1000 bits of information to me, instead of planned 500, and you yourself learn extra 500 bits.
Extremely optimistic. If this were the ideal scenario, you would USE the LLM to garner information ABOUT those 500 bits and then reframe them in a way that you yourself would put it. If there is insight, your "word" in your mental register now expands from the original 1000 bits to 1500 or 2000, and then are "processed" by your human brain that includes subconscious choices that are meaningful to the end result. There are tons of hidden semiotic data in your diction and wording (think resource forks in classic MacOS/HFS, only visible to the filesys) that is lost when you rely on another source to put together words for you; it's as if it is a game of Telephone. These are subtleties which you may intend for your recipient to receive and which are crucially important to your recipient and are irretrievable, it is intrinsically lossy. You have an alphabet soup of words, they cannot be put together by an LLM in exactly the way your brain did. We must rely on the fact that we ourselves put this together, the "aha" moment when an LLM does it for you is illusory and does not itself provide meaningfully important confirmation that you indeed say what you mean to say. Of course, humans say things and put things in way we do not intend to all the time. I still fundamentally believe this is more honest than relying on a third party that is not capable of understanding human emotional nuance to put together language for you, when language is and always has been a manner in which to dictate human emotional nuance.
> (Excuse the strong language, but I spent a lot of effort every day on both dealing with inconsiderate people lobbing LLM output at me, and making sure never to act like one myself, so it's a topic close to my heart.)
Does not negate the fact that LLM output itself, at least when used to convey human emotions or thoughts, is lossy. A very highly compressed JPEG with added interpolation from an upscale algorithm might come up with cool details that were never present in the original, and may look cool to both you and the recipient but are not honest to the source material. You receiving 240p JPEGs on a day-to-day basis is irrelevant to this. For the purposes of communication, it is a massive error which has the potential to compound, regardless of whether or not you or the recipient believe this to be the case.
> If this were the ideal scenario, you would USE the LLM to garner information ABOUT those 500 bits and then reframe them in a way that you yourself would put it.
Yes, but at that point in practice we're getting into over-optimizing territory. In this optimistic case I presented, you could learn those 500 bits yourself and formulate a clean message yourself, with all 1000 bits in it, but since LLM already gave you the text, and you feel you vouch for, you may as well send it over and save yourself the effort.
In reality the numbers are probably lower, and writing the message yourself is IMO also a good way to be truly sure you vouch for the "extra" 500 bits, as it forces you to actually pay attention. There's a chance you'll find inconsistency in output, or in your own understanding. I don't begrudge people for eventually cutting the process off here, for practical reasons - it's the fuzzy line between accuracy and perfectionism.
> A very highly compressed JPEG with added interpolation from an upscale algorithm might come up with cool details that were never present in the original, and may look cool to both you and the recipient but are not honest to the source material.
Again, I think it's a wrong take. LLMs aren't pulling the information out of their asses, and you are also not able to express every information directly. LLM can "upscale" information and you can take a look and recognize, "yes, this is exactly as it was", even without being able to write out that "upscaled" version by yourself. Verification is often easier than direct recall.
Environmentalists have no power whatsoever and most of the people in the younger generation do not have the same antipathy towards nuclear power because we grew up in a post-SALT world and haven't lived through the spectre of reactors being used for nuclear proliferation and weapons production.
Regardless, governments do not typically care about public sentiment when making strategic moves for long-term time horizons. It's why we have a strong military and why despite so much whining about its cost, the F-35 exists and is being fielded by as many squadrons as can get their hands on it. If they wanted to build out nuclear power in a civilian capacity, they would. We already do it for subs and ships.
> I don’t know how one (especially anyone who has raised a child) could think contact is less important in humans or that this doesn’t generalize.
Look around this forum, and all of the rampant fealty and worship towards LLMs and the mythical blood sacrifices made to the vaporware AGI god, or asociable people bragging about how Claude is a better friend, co-worker, and (rare but I've seen it) romantic partner than actual human beings.
Plenty of people out there, more than we're willing to admit, are callous, unfeeling, unempathetic, and uncaring. They may not rise to the level of outright sociopathy or psychopathy, but they generally do not regard emotions highly, negative or positive. This archetype is overrepresented in academia and science, so make of that what you will.
> Plenty of people out there, more than we're willing to admit, are callous, unfeeling, unempathetic, and uncaring. They may not rise to the level of outright sociopathy or psychopathy, but they generally do not regard emotions highly, negative or positive. This archetype is overrepresented in academia and science, so make of that what you will.
FWIW in tech I think this is often poor emotional awareness and lacking emotional vocabulary than callousness and a lack of emotions in themselves. Kind of state you end up in if you spend too much time with computers and books and not enough learning the nuances of social life as a kid.
Though with Harlow I don't know. Gives me a vibe he could have been a season of Mindhunter if he'd made a few different life choices.
I wish that there was one day where I could log in and just feel like I was on the HN that existed when I first got my account. A day with a moratorium on all posting about LLMs, LLM startups, generative AI, just actual Hacker News, i.e. news which is interesting to hackers, and not a compendium of every terrible antisocial Bay Area echo chamber idea being sold as humanity's savior by narcissists with God complexes.
> It's not so much about "vibes" but using the tool (yes the AI tool) in a certain way that can propel yourself towards your goal at unprecedented speeds.
I think most would agree with that, unfortunately, this is not how LLMs or agentic flows are being marketed, nor how firms are encouraging their users to use them. It's being sold in a manner completely different from its capabilities.
I've maintained this for a long time but if AI was being sold as a way to achieve superhuman levels of productivity and to help you with certain goals or tasks then people would be far less opposed to its adoption. The social havoc it's wreaked as a result of Altman et al.'s bluster about it being a fully ready, human-level replacement for humans has done its reputational damage and it will take years for that to recover, especially given that they don't seem to care (yet).
Lack of theory of mind correlates pretty strongly with the types of traits that are valued highly in Silicon Valley. There's a self-selection effect here where many of the titans of industry in the Bay and similar circles are intelligent in a mathematical or scientific, computer-like way but cannot express themselves or understand other people deeply and emotively in the way that many others with fewer intellectual gifts can do effortlessly.
Perhaps this is also why they're so worshipful and quixotically obsessed with the vaporware, God they call AGI so much, because they cannot understand how competence at tasks is not equivalent to intellect and that intelligence as we understand it is not one-note nor is fundamentally inseparable from certain sensory experiences that computers cannot currently have. The fundamental underpinnings of AGI or LLMs prevent that from occurring in the near-future unless you literally set out to create RoboCop or a T800. We all know how that ends.
Do we? Or do we just have a bunch of made up stories about possible dystopian futures that haven't yet come to pass? Skynet isn't real, nor is the Matrix. They're made up stories, creative fiction, not Cassandra telling the future.
You live in a world entirely controlled by the rich. Few places has a functional democracy(Switzerland, where else?).
Most of your life is spent performing a business function; the value of your labor is rapidly declining, and the little freedom the common man has is evaporating. Further, the surveillance state is near total - everything we do is recorded, and these records are controlled by the worst amongst us(including this message from me to you).
The easy workaround for this (which Flock has used to massive success and why it's drawn so much ire) is to set up or subcontract a private corporation to do this which will inherently be subject to much less stringent oversight. It also allows government and law enforcement to evade accountability.
The legal arguments against Flock are different than the legal arguments against thermal imaging by the police (without a warrant or probably cause). And the latter is closer to the hypothetical broad mind reading (science fiction, again) than it is to Flock.
This is exactly the use case an LLM might (huge emphasis on might, depends on workflow, agentic vs. relying on contextual which can hallucinate) be good at and yet humans are notoriously bad at, because we are swayed by emotional responses and it is easy to have an emotional response to text that is programmed to look good for you and you alone.
> you communicate 1000 bits of information to me, instead of planned 500, and you yourself learn extra 500 bits.
Extremely optimistic. If this were the ideal scenario, you would USE the LLM to garner information ABOUT those 500 bits and then reframe them in a way that you yourself would put it. If there is insight, your "word" in your mental register now expands from the original 1000 bits to 1500 or 2000, and then are "processed" by your human brain that includes subconscious choices that are meaningful to the end result. There are tons of hidden semiotic data in your diction and wording (think resource forks in classic MacOS/HFS, only visible to the filesys) that is lost when you rely on another source to put together words for you; it's as if it is a game of Telephone. These are subtleties which you may intend for your recipient to receive and which are crucially important to your recipient and are irretrievable, it is intrinsically lossy. You have an alphabet soup of words, they cannot be put together by an LLM in exactly the way your brain did. We must rely on the fact that we ourselves put this together, the "aha" moment when an LLM does it for you is illusory and does not itself provide meaningfully important confirmation that you indeed say what you mean to say. Of course, humans say things and put things in way we do not intend to all the time. I still fundamentally believe this is more honest than relying on a third party that is not capable of understanding human emotional nuance to put together language for you, when language is and always has been a manner in which to dictate human emotional nuance.
> (Excuse the strong language, but I spent a lot of effort every day on both dealing with inconsiderate people lobbing LLM output at me, and making sure never to act like one myself, so it's a topic close to my heart.)
Does not negate the fact that LLM output itself, at least when used to convey human emotions or thoughts, is lossy. A very highly compressed JPEG with added interpolation from an upscale algorithm might come up with cool details that were never present in the original, and may look cool to both you and the recipient but are not honest to the source material. You receiving 240p JPEGs on a day-to-day basis is irrelevant to this. For the purposes of communication, it is a massive error which has the potential to compound, regardless of whether or not you or the recipient believe this to be the case.
reply