[TUHS] Re: On the unreliability of LLM-based search results (was: Listing of early Unix source code from the Computer History Museum)

[Luther Johnson <luther.johnson@makerlisp.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5910 bytes --]

I think we could call many of these responses "mis-ambiguation", or 
conflation, they mush everything together as long as the questions posed 
and the answers they provide are "buzzword-adjacent", in a very 
superficial, mechanical way. There's no intelligence here, it's just 
amazing how much we project onto these bots because we want to believe 
in them.

On 05/31/2025 03:36 PM, James Johnston wrote:
> Well, I have to say that my experiences with "AI based search" have 
> been beyond grossly annoying. It keeps trying to "help me" by sliding 
> in common terms it actually knows about instead of READING THE DAMN QUERY.
>
> I had much, much better experiences with very literal search methods, 
> and I'd like to go back to that when I'm looking for obscure papers, 
> names, etc.  Telling me "you mean" when I damn well DID NOT MEAN THAT 
> is a worst-case experiences.
>
> Sorry, not so much a V11 experience here, but I have to say it may 
> serve the public, but only to guide them back into boring, 
> middle-of-the-road, 'average mean-calculating' responses that simply 
> neither enlighten nor serve the original purpose of search.
>
> jj - a grumpy old signal processing/hearing guy who used a lot of real 
> operating systems back when and kind of misses them.
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 2:53 PM Luther Johnson 
> <luther.johnson@makerlisp.com <mailto:luther.johnson@makerlisp.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     I agree.
>
>     On 05/31/2025 01:09 PM, arnold@skeeve.com
>     <mailto:arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>     > It's been going on a for a long time, even before AI. The amount
>     > of cargo cult programming I've seen over the past ~ 10 years
>     > is extremely discouraging.  Look up something on Stack Overflow
>     > and copy/paste it without understanding it.  How much better is
>     > that than relying on AI?  Not much in my opinion.  (Boy, am I glad
>     > I retired recently.)
>     >
>     > Arnold
>     >
>     > Luther Johnson <luther.johnson@makerlisp.com
>     <mailto:luther.johnson@makerlisp.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> I think when no-one notices anymore, how wrong automatic
>     information is,
>     >> and how often, it will have effectively redefined reality, and
>     humans,
>     >> who have lost the ability to reason for themselves, will
>     declare that AI
>     >> has met and exceeded human intelligence. They will be right, partly
>     >> because of AI's improvements, but to a larger extent, because
>     we will
>     >> have forgotten how to think. I think AI is having disastrous
>     effects on
>     >> the education of younger generations right now, I see it in my
>     >> workplace, every day.
>     >>
>     >> On 05/31/2025 12:31 PM, andrew@humeweb.com
>     <mailto:andrew@humeweb.com> wrote:
>     >>> generally, i rate norman’s missives very high on the
>     believability scale.
>     >>> but in this case, i think he is wrong.
>     >>>
>     >>> if you take as a baseline, the abilities of LLMs (such as
>     earlier versions of ChatGP?) 2-3 years ago
>     >>> was quite suspect. certainly better than mark shaney, but not
>     overwhelmingly.
>     >>>
>     >>> those days are long past. modern systems are amazingly adept.
>     not necessarily intelligent,
>     >>> but they can (but not always) pass realistic tests, pass SAT
>     tests and bar exams, math olympiad tests
>     >>> and so on. and people can use them to do basic (but realistic)
>     data analysis including experimental design,
>     >>> generate working code, and run that code against synthetic
>     data and produce visual output.
>     >>>
>     >>> sure, there are often mistakes. the issue of hullucinations is
>     real. but where we are now
>     >>> is almost astonishing, and will likely get MUCH better in the
>     next year or three.
>     >>>
>     >>> end-of-admonishment
>     >>>
>     >>>     andrew
>     >>>
>     >>>> On May 26, 2025, at 9:40 AM, Norman Wilson <norman@oclsc.org
>     <mailto:norman@oclsc.org>> wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> G. Branden Robinson:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>    That's why I think Norman has sussed it out accurately. 
>     LLMs are
>     >>>>    fantastic bullshit generators in the Harry G. Frankfurt
>     sense,[1]
>     >>>>    wherein utterances are undertaken neither to enlighten nor
>     to deceive,
>     >>>>    but to construct a simulacrum of plausible discourse. 
>     BSing is a close
>     >>>>    cousin to filibustering, where even plausibility is
>     discarded, often for
>     >>>>    the sake of running out a clock or impeding achievement of
>     consensus.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> ====
>     >>>>
>     >>>> That's exactly what I had in mind.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I think I had read Frankfurt's book before I first started
>     >>>> calling LLMs bullshit generators, but I can't remember for
>     >>>> sure.  I don't plan to ask ChatGPT (which still, at least
>     >>>> sometimes, credits me with far greater contributions to Unix
>     >>>> than I have actually made).
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Here's an interesting paper I stumbled across last week
>     >>>> which presents the case better than I could:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
>     >>>>
>     >>>> To link this back to actual Unix history (or something much
>     >>>> nearer that), I realized that `bullshit generator' was a
>     >>>> reasonable summary of what LLMs do after also realizing that
>     >>>> an LLM is pretty much just a much-fancier and better-automated
>     >>>> descendant of Mark V Shaney:
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V._Shaney
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Norman Wilson
>     >>>> Toronto ON
>
>
>
> -- 
> James D. (jj) Johnston
>
> Former Chief Scientist, Immersion Networks


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9462 bytes --]