this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19154 readers
2012 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Plenty of fun to be had with LLMs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Copilot seemed to be a bit better tuned, but I've now confused it by misspelling strawberry. Such fun.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's one example when LLMs won't work without some tuning. What it does is probably looking up information of how many Rs there are, instead of actually analyzing it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It cannot "analyze" it. It's fundamentally not how LLM's work. The LLM has a finite set of "tokens": words and word-pieces like "dog", "house", but also like "berry" and "straw" or "rasp". When it reads the input it splits the words into the recognized tokens. It's like a lookup table. The input becomes "token15, token20043, token1923, token984, token1234, ..." and so on. The LLM "thinks" of these tokens as coordinates in a very high dimensional space. But it cannot go back and examine the actual contents (letters) in each token. It has to get the information about the number or "r" from somewhere else. So it has likely ingested some texts where the number of "r"s in strawberry is discussed. But it can never actually "test" it.

A completely new architecture or paradigm is needed to make these LLM's capable of reading letter by letter and keep some kind of count-memory.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

the sheer audacity to call this shit intelligence is making me angrier every day

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's because you don't have a basic understanding of language, if you had been exposed to the word intelligence in scientific literature such as biology textbooks then you'd more easily understand what's being said.

'Rich in nutrients?! How can a banana be rich when it doesn't have a job or generational wealth? Makes me so fucking mad when these scientists lie to us!!!'

The comment looks dumb to you because you understand the word 'rich' doesn't only mean having lots of money, you're used to it in other contexts - likewise if you'd read about animal intelligence and similar subjects then 'how can you call it intelligence when it does know basic math' or 'how is it intelligent when it doesn't do this thing literally only humans can do' would sound silly too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

this is not language mate, it's pr. if you don't understand the difference between rich being used to mean plentiful and intelligence being used to mean glorified autocorrect that doesn't even know what it's saying that's a problem with your understanding of language.

also my problem isn't about doing math. doing math is a skill, it's not intelligence. if you don't teach someone about math they're most likely not going to invent the whole concept from scratch no matter how intelligent they may be. my problem is that it can't analyze and solve problems. this is not a skill, it's basic intelligence you find in most animals.

also it doesn't even deal with meaning, and doesn't even know what it says means, and doesn't even know whether it knows something or not, and it's called a "language model". the whole thing is a joke.