undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaredox11mo ago0 comments

>Saying "just text prediction" understates how big a deal that is.

Here on HN we often see posts insisting on the importance of "first principles".

Your embrace of "magic" - an unknown black box who does seemingly wonderful things that usually blow up to one's face and have a hidden cost - is the opposite of that.

LLMs are just text prediction. That's what they are.

>Why can LLMs generally write code that even compiles?

Why can I copy-paste code and it compiles?

Try to use LLM on code there is little training material about - for example PowerQuery or Excel - and you will see it bullshit and fail - even Microsoft's own LLM.

0 comments

ben_w11mo ago

> Why can I copy-paste code and it compiles?

I think phrasing it like that is called "begging the question": you've already skipped past all the intelligence you had to apply to figure out which part of the entire internet constituted "code".

And not just any code, but code in correct language. If I copy-paste C64 Basic into the middle of a .swift file (and not as a string), it isn't going to compile.

And not just in the correct language, but a complete block of it, rather than a fragment.

> even Microsoft's own LLM.

"even" suggests you hold them in higher regard than I do.

cdecl11mo ago

> LLMs are just text prediction. That's what they are.

This sort of glib talking point really doesn't pass muster, because if you showed the current state of affairs to a random developer from 2015, you would absolutely blow their damned socks off.

aredoxOP11mo ago

They would be blown off by the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of [text prediction]", but it is still text prediction.

That's the very root cause why we still have unsolved problems like the inability to get the same answer to the same questions, the inability to do riguorous maths or logic (any question that only has one good answer, in fact) and hallucinations!

cdecl11mo ago

The problem is not the text prediction, which nobody denies, rather the "just" which minimizes its impact.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsaredox11mo ago0 comments

>Saying "just text prediction" understates how big a deal that is.

Here on HN we often see posts insisting on the importance of "first principles".

Your embrace of "magic" - an unknown black box who does seemingly wonderful things that usually blow up to one's face and have a hidden cost - is the opposite of that.

LLMs are just text prediction. That's what they are.

>Why can LLMs generally write code that even compiles?

Why can I copy-paste code and it compiles?

Try to use LLM on code there is little training material about - for example PowerQuery or Excel - and you will see it bullshit and fail - even Microsoft's own LLM.

0 comments

ben_w11mo ago

> Why can I copy-paste code and it compiles?

I think phrasing it like that is called "begging the question": you've already skipped past all the intelligence you had to apply to figure out which part of the entire internet constituted "code".

And not just any code, but code in correct language. If I copy-paste C64 Basic into the middle of a .swift file (and not as a string), it isn't going to compile.

And not just in the correct language, but a complete block of it, rather than a fragment.

> even Microsoft's own LLM.

"even" suggests you hold them in higher regard than I do.

cdecl11mo ago

> LLMs are just text prediction. That's what they are.

This sort of glib talking point really doesn't pass muster, because if you showed the current state of affairs to a random developer from 2015, you would absolutely blow their damned socks off.

aredoxOP11mo ago

They would be blown off by the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of [text prediction]", but it is still text prediction.

cdecl11mo ago

The problem is not the text prediction, which nobody denies, rather the "just" which minimizes its impact.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse