upvote

points

by exfalso8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jtmarl1n8 hours ago|
next
[-]
So the LLM would have done all of this on its own? Why is it ok to acknowledge the human was needed but it’s not a collaboration? Is there a defined percentage of ownership required to make the word collaboration valid?
reply
upvoteby true_religion7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
We focus on the tool because that is what makes it novel.

Hearing a guy built his home in a week with the power of nails and a hammer would have been novel in era of mortise and tenon.

I actually found an article about raving about how fast nail production was thanks to machining advances in 1790 and that it would bring great value: https://digital.libraries.psu.edu/digital/collection/pabookn...

It’s seems to me humans haven’t changed, just which machines we praise.

reply
upvoteby jstanley7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If you get someone to build you a house and they do it on their own, does that not count because they wouldn't have done it if you didn't pay them to do it?

Technically you built it yourself and the builder was just a minor collaborator?

reply
upvoteby cicko7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Correct. I do everything by myself.
reply
upvoteby jfyi4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I appreciate the effort that went into the verbose version of the "I made this" meme for an hn audience.
reply
upvoteby 7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby Macuyiko7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
From the article:

"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own. Carter Leffer only directed GPT–6 Astra to see if it could break any of the unbroken Enigma messages published on the Crypto Cellar Research web page."

I mean... I'm all for collaboration but I think this case is pretty clear, no?

reply
upvoteby alerighi7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean, the LLM could do it even without all the HUMAN knowledge that was stealed during training about the Enigma machine?

We are fooling to me, there is no intelligence in these models, they just apply methods that were invented by humans without any consciousness on what they are doing.

reply
upvoteby allturtles7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You could say exactly the same about humans. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Every human depends on a vast corpus of prior human knowledge to be able to accomplish anything. This doesn't mean they have no intelligence.
reply
upvoteby huty7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This is dumb.

At the margin the innovative human matters.

What that means for the rest of society is TBD.

reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
At the margin innovation is just taking the obvious next step first.
reply
upvoteby huty26 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Says the person whose never produced a novel thought in his life!
reply
upvoteby radium3d6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Humans are also needed to code in C++ and compile it, then the computer does the rest.

Now we just code in english and the computer does the rest.

reply
upvoteby platevoltage2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
English isn't code. Come on.
reply
upvoteby UpsideDownRide6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What do you even mean it wasn't a collaboration. At any meaningful level LLMs just plain out suck when left unguided.

The shortcomings should really be obvious by now to anyone honest. And the marketing distortion being oushed out is just tiresome and detrimental for all of us.

reply
upvoteby speed_spread7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
A cyclist pedaling up a mountain isn't a "collaboration" between a bicycle and a human. This is the same. You don't see feral bicycles roaming the land. All models are ultimately built and run by humans, with human-provided instructions. And as with any program, it's garbage in, garbage out.
reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
More apt analogy here: a cyclist pushing a bicycle down the mountain and seeing it somehow get down the whole track without falling down, is not a collaboration between a bicycle and a human. The human was not involved beyond giving the initial push.
reply
upvoteby speed_spread2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Cyclist still chooses the time, mountain and direction the bicycle gets pushed in. Bicycles have no agency and only go down because gravity. Bicycle will not "discover" tree or wall, any outcome solely the result of cyclist's decisions even if thrown bicycles don't have generally deterministic paths. Don't anthropomorphize the bicycle.
reply
upvoteby 1attice6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The bicycle -- a simple method of transport powered entirely by humans -- used analogically to prove a point about [clears throat] automation.

I think this sounds somewhat less silly in English because "automotive" and "automative" don't have the same hyper-visible affinity, but all the same; you may want to consider the car as a more viable analogand.

reply