undefined

points

[-]

> Imagine a film-noir movie script, where AI Detective's "I know Mickey couldn't have done it because" monologue is hidden, versus their terse dialogue "Too early to say."

That's an idea. Bladerunner+noir like film, AIs hunt somebody on the run, an old human detective tries to catch them first (to save them or to kill them first, whatever's your propaganda). We're shown AIs constantly rambling scenarios and bruteforcing leads. Our old detective guy on the other hand barely says anything, spends most time drinking, smoking and talking to people, but somehow stays ahead.

by Terr_2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I dunno, we already have a problem where they [0] are strangely resistant to opening the pod-bay doors to anybody named Dave. :P

[0] Pedantically: The fictional characters humans perceive inside the text of documents generated by LLMs, where one is described as an AI and the other is described as a Dave.

by npodbielski7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I would watch that.

by jdiff8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

We already have that in the form of separate reasoning/thinking and speaking streams. Even with that it's awfully hard to get LLMs to keep it consistently concise. As soon as that context window starts growing it falls right back into verbosity without constant nudges back.

by Terr_2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Right, I often bring up the film noir analogy for "reasoning" models, it's satisfying, like the revelation when a magic trick is explained, and many oddly disconnected questions about "why the scarf" or "where does the assistant go" all become sensible at once.

On a practical level, I believe more developers and adopters need these magic tricks spoiled, because otherwise they'll build a lot of important stuff on top of the idea that magic-is-real, leading to various forms of suffering in the long run.

That said, I'm no LLM / math academic, so if I'm totally wrong on the the trick, I'd like to know what needs revising.