Hacker News Reader

Comment by menaerus | Hacker News Reader

Where exactly do you see human creativity and spark in the loop or fresh, new, bold, creative ideas in

> We asked it to rewrite the whole thing, and with no further instructions

They simply asked the model to rewrite the code without suggesting anything to the model which counters your creativity argument, which I see many people make too, but which I believe is not correct anymore. Models IME already are creative in ways I personally find it difficult to compete with. I still occasionally find something that the model in the first iteration would not to but the model is already far superior with its capabilities than I am.

View on HN

In the code to be rewritten. The stuff that happened before handoff to the machine.

Well, Anthropic used model A to output the version 1, and then used model B to rewrite the version 1 into version 2, so the handoff was machine to machine and not human to machine. I read that part of an article as if it was their internal assessment test of their new model B (Fable) capabilities so that they can see if the new model can find interesting things but by intentionally being vague and without implementing the bias into your prompt. I use this technique very often as well for two major reasons: (1) I don't know what I might be missing so I let the model do the unbiased exploration of problem space, (2) I am curious how far the given model has come with its capabilities. What Antrophic did in this case is an example of (1) and I wouldn't really call it creative since anyone could prompt the model with "rewrite this code".

But the first version was “mostly handwritten”?

The humans decided they wanted that specific conversion tool. The tool just worked on creating it. The decision is the human creative input.

That is not the quote parent comment was about wasn't it or am I missing something?

In case of your comment, I could have agreed to some degree but what you say is also not necessarily true since we don't actually know if the new source control is the result of human creative input or if it was also suggested by the model. Having worked with these models extensively I am inclined to believe that both can be true.

Well, the quote says that rhe first iteration was habd coded. So I assune that this means humans fully inchangé ofnthe décision-making; otherwise, the statement would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com