But is it really what we want, machines with the same defects as humans? I don't want a pocket calculator that make mistakes "sometimes" so I have to double-check the results, I want a pocket calculator that works (to those who want to argue that pocket calculators don't give the correct result for (1/3)*3: STFU).
>But is it really what we want, machines with the same defects as humans?
Sort of, actually. I think we humans actually have some intuition that we'd be more effective if our cognition were augmented more directly by machine strengths: the ability to run precise calculations, more memory, ability to look facts in some sort of knowledge graph.
I think we're on the right track, but instead of augmenting humans with machine strengths, we're building intelligence in hardware in a way where it can access that augmentation. Plus, then we can quickly distribute updates, run parallel instances, etc.
If intelligence is compression, and hallucinations are essentially loss, then as the models grow in size performance (at least as far as hallucinations) should reduce. Or we'll get things fast enough that we can afford to stop relying on model weights for memory and check an increasingly larger set of discrete facts as part of reasoning.
Right now, the models are making trade-offs. As compute grows, and inference gets faster, we can make fewer of those trade-offs and start to use the unique strengths of machines to fill the gaps we're seeing, I suspect.
One of the biggest strengths of a computer is reproducibility. The worst software bugs are inconsistent or non reproducible. The least useful calculators apply rules inconsistently, to your example.
the inconsistency of LLMs is by far one of the biggest gripes I have with them. Closely related to their apparently deep desire to avoid following instructions.
I know these are both a byproduct of noise (which is somewhat tunable) and noise is inherent to these systems in a lode bearing way.
I still hate it. it’s holding the technology back. I don’t honestly see how we can safely or even successfully approach the idealized realm of AI without bypassing this problem, which to my understanding, probably means not using language models at all and trying a totally different approach. But I really don’t know much about machine learning, I’m a super novice compared to a lot on this website.
When we are really thinking about something we do it forwards, backwards and middle out, and regenerate and distill many times.
When we do meta thinking about that process after the fact, two things happen. 1, we change our total “thought” by adding that meta thinking to it. And 2: it’s a very lossy process, because we don’t have very good data about what our brain or mind was actually doing during that first think and emotional factors are nearly always at play and even more complex.
Now for the more complex AI, the fragmented process of multiple agents and loops and reruns are pretty similar to that first think we do. At least structurally. But the meta think is where they differ. They have no emotion, but they also have even worse data about its own function. They constantly degenerate so I would argue their “changing the thought by thinking about it” factor is also generally way higher than ours.
Getting better at consistent/reproducible thinking, with many ‘steps’, that leaves good documentation of that thinking behind for future analysis, has to be one of the more important areas for the big flagships going forward. I’m certain that “what is this fucker doing and why” is the biggest pain point for AI researchers. Or the math, it’s usually the math.
But you’re correct in the general structure; they generally do the same post hoc analysis we do, just noticeably worse because of their opaque nature(even to themselves) and general degenerative instability.
No. People have an inner monologue, partial results and ideas and they remember that.
If they've worked some minutes/hours/weeks on something and you ask them why did they do that, they will either answer honestly and truthfully, lie, or say "I missed that/didn't seem important so I just chose something at random".
Perhaps up to 50% of people actually don't have an inner monologue, much like many have aphantasia where they can't actually see anything in their mind either.
That’s not how that works. I don’t usually have an inner monologue either, but I do have an abstract stream of thought. It’s not as if I am always acting on instinct.
If you have examples of studies that verify that people are always aware of the gaps in their memories of why they did things rather than their memories sometimes "filling in the blanks", so to speak, I'd be interested. My impression is that the opposite has a lot more evidence in studies (e.g. around the reliability of eyewitness testimony).
It's not clear to me whether you're aware of a rigorous basis for your claim or you're just inferring based on what you think makes sense, but I can't help but wonder if it's the later, in which case regardless of the mechanism, the outcome certainly seems to resemble what happens with LLMs.
No, I was asking why you were confident that 3 didn't exist because the comment you said before was that people will either recall correct, lie, or not remember. Lying is not the same as remembering incorrectly but not realizing it, so I agree with your relaxed list. I still don't understand how you think this is any different from an LLM though, which will also always give one of the three options you listed just now.
I think this is true with some people, but I don't think this holds true for some (or even most) people across the US (at least not all the folks I've worked with)
Models with reasoning > Instant have an inner monologue and when asked why they did something they can deduce based on that monologue. I have asked things like "what steps did you take" and "what was your reasoning" and the answer matched the thinking output of the model.
>No. People have an inner monologue, partial results and ideas and they remember that.
Yes, but the vast, vast majority of decisions you make either don't take place via an inner monologue, or include details that were not actively/consciously "thought" and reasoned with in your inner monologue.
And yet, when asked why you did something, you're not likely to respond "sorry, that decision was made subconsciously". Instead, you use your inner monologue to try to backfill in a reason why. That reason may be correct, or it may not be. You don't actually know, since you have new data that may be updating your own internal state as you try to rationalize it after the fact.
Actually split brain experiments tells a different story. The left hemisphere actively confabulates, inventing plausible explanations for actions it didn’t initiate, suggesting that much of human self-narrative may be post-hoc storytelling.
> The left hemisphere actively confabulates, inventing plausible explanations for actions it didn’t initiate, suggesting that much of human self-narrative may be post-hoc storytelling.
Sounds like the left hemisphere usually uses something from the right hemisphere to answer those questions and it can't do that if it's been cut off?
We know that our brains are capable of hallucinating due to substances (drugs), being asleep, brain damage (including split brain), hypnosis, etc. Just as RAM damage make your computer do weird shit. That doesn't mean it operates that way normally.
You can't just remove a huge part of a system and then assume that the whole system behaves the same.
Perhaps, but it's also a rather questionable achievement: We've already had several decades of program-output that can match humans with literal brain damage.
If anything, biological comparisons should make us cautious. Consider the vast gulf that still exists between the finest artificial organ/limb versus the OEM parts of natural nanobots.
That was my experience with Claude when my vibe-coded project was small.
But now that I've been working on it a month and there's a lot of documentation, it's pretty clearly ignoring parts of the documentation and parts of the code. It will come up with some ridiculous statement about how something works, and I'll challenge it, and it'll admit I'm right.
It definitely reads more documentation than any programmer I've ever worked with (myself included) but because it doesn't have a memory other than the documentation, it still makes mistakes like that.
I haven't turned on "memory" or tried it with Codex, so I don't know how that'll change soon, though.
Yeah the biggest task these days that I do manually is curating the documentation. AGENTS.md in every major directory, and a variety of reference docs that are explicitly referenced in those files.
# See DOC-ITEM-NAME
DOC-ITEM-NAME.md
When referencing documents, always use the exact syntax See <TAG> - this is enforced by a lint on precommit
And those doc items are basically all of the values, architectural, strategic, and tactical items. It's a poor man's in-repo RAG but it's shockingly effective, especially if you keep them small. I may migrate some/all of them to skills over time, but I usually update them biweekly, and I only allow agents to make small edits or propose new notes. And typically I go through and delete or curate any agent edits before merge.
Depending on language I've seen this scale past multiple millions of lines of code, as long as you pair it with all of the linting and tooling that you can possibly build.
I see this observation frequently, and I dislike how it often has the unsound subtext of: "Therefore something is going well or at least not too badly."
If you build a robot where a pressurized hose leaks causing fluid to destroy part of the circuitry, we don't praise it as progress towards the human ideal of having brain aneurysms. A similar failure-path is not a reliable indicator of a similar success-path.
AFAIK this really is true. I've seen some videos about patients who had the connecting part between the left and right halves of the brain cut as a (archaic) treatment for epilepsy.
While it did help the epilepsy, their brain was essentially two brains controlling two halves of the body. With one controlling speech. There were experiments where one eye was shown some instruction text, the corresponding hand performed that instruction, and when asked why they dix that action, the speaking half just made up some plausible, yet completely wrong reason, just like an LLM.
People do both. Some choices aren't worth the time and effort of detailed analysis and contemplation and some are basically instinctual, but there are plenty of times that choices are carefully considered and well reasoned before being made and acted on.
Every time I hear someone complain about hallucinations, I laugh at the total lack of self awareness about our species. Humans are just as bad (now, probably worse) at telling the truth, whether due to intention or poor memory.
