Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

Putting aside the possibility that they just happened to use the word “delve,” IMO we still have to figure out the convention for this sort of thing. I don’t particularly value the time scientists spend writing the prose around their ideas, the ideas themselves are the valuable part.

One possibility, for example, could be journals allow AI written submissions but also require and distribute the prompts. Then we could just read the prompts and be spared stuff like the passive voice dance.

They probably abused a compiler to generate their program instead of writing it in assembly.

View on HN

Soon AI will turn a chickenscrath of notes into a wonderful email. And then turn it back automatically for the end reader.

We put to much emphasis on the look rather than the substance. People are afraid to send out an email with 2 words: Meeting Friday and instead pad it out with pleasantry and detail, context and importance, but none of that really matters.

'Meeting Friday" is not enough information to have me attend the meeting. So I'm not sure what this analogy was supposed to illustrate.

Depends on who it is from I guess.

It's not enough information no matter who it is. If it's someone with enough political, social, or institutional capital you might overlook the annoyance but it still only tells you when. Doesnt say the what the when or the who, all of which have consequences for what I need to do to be prepared.

Exactly what you demonstrated.

‘Meeting Friday’ was the message. You completely ignored the rest. It was just extra padding (intentionally so). Maybe 2 words is too short. But can you honestly tell me that the majority of emails you receive is suscinct and to the point? Or do you simply skim them for highlights and extract what is relevant to you?

That’s really the take away I was trying to get at. People equate quantity to quality far too often. We send way more content than we need to out of fear that someone will equate less with bad.

A compiler yields deterministic results though.

llms are also deterministic

No, in most cases the same input will yield a different output.

in a deterministic way based on seeds

Only because most tools provide a randomize seed alongside the input, but you don't have to do that.

No, LLMs are deterministic. What you are describing is a randomized seed, which is another input to the LLM. Some interfaces expose this input, and some do not.

Only if you have a non-zero temperature. You have to program in nondeterminism, because otherwise they are 100% deterministic.

Regardless of the nitty-gritty “determinism” questions; why’s this matter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com