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 > > > wrote: > > I agree. > > On 05/31/2025 01:09 PM, 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 > 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 > 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 > 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