this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
198 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1435 readers
97 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Did someone not know this like, pretty much from day one?

Not the idiot executives that blew all their budget on AI and made up for it with mass layoffs - the people interested in it. Was that not clear that there was no “reasoning” going on?

[–] khalid_salad@awful.systems 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:

  1. we are all just stochastic parrots lmao
  2. maybe intelligence is an emergent ability that will show up eventually (disregard the inability to falsify this and the categorical nonsense that is our definition of "emergent").

So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think "fuck off, promptfondler" is pretty good too.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“Language is a virus from outer space”

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago

I thought it came from Babylonian writing that recoded the brains and planted the languages.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking

so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 12 points 1 month ago

No they do not im afraid, hell I didnt even know that even ELIZA caused people to think it could reason (and this worried the creator) until a few years ago.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A lot of people still don't, from what I can gather from some of the comments on "AI" topics. Especially the ones that skew the other way with its "AI" hysteria is often an invite from people who know fuck all about how the tech works. "Nudifier" or otherwise generative images or explicit chats with bots that portray real or underage people being the most common topics that attract emotionally loaded but highly uninformed demands and outrage. Frankly, the whole "AI" topic in the media is so massively overblown on both fronts, but I guess it is good for traffic and nuance is dead anyway.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Indeed, although every one of us who have seen a tech hype train once or twice expected nothing less.

PDAs? Quantum computing. Touch screens. Siri. Cortana. Micropayments. Apps. Synergy of desktop and mobile.

From the outset this went from “hey that’s kind of neat” to quite possibly toppling some giants of tech in a flash. Now all we have to do is wait for the boards to give huge payouts to the pinheads that drove this shitwagon in here and we can get back to doing cool things without some imaginary fantasy stapled on to it at the explicit instruction of marketing and channel sales.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Xml also used to be a tech hype for a bit.

And i still remember how media outlets hyped up second life, forgot about it and a few months later discovered it again and more hype started. It was fun.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

and then spent the entire Metaverse hype pretending Second Life didn't exist

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 14 points 1 month ago

Lot easier to do hype when you pretend the previous iterations didn't exist. (and still do, and actually have more content).

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 11 points 1 month ago

./^ L E G S ^\.

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 14 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Oh man, XML is such a funny hype. What if we took S-expressions and made them less human readable, harder to parse programmatically and with multiple ways to do the same thing! Do I encode something an an element with the key as a tag and the value as the content, or do I make it an attribute of a tag? Just look at the schema, which is yet more XML! Include this magic URL at the top of your document. Want to query something from the document? Here you go! No, that's not a base64-encoded private key nor a transcript of someone's editing session in vim, that's an XPath.

JSON has its issues but at least it's only the worst of some worlds. Want to make JSON unparsable anyway, for a laugh? Try YAML, the serialization format recommended by four out of five Nordic countries!

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 10 points 1 month ago

No, that’s not a base64-encoded private key nor a transcript of someone’s editing session in vim, that’s an XPath.

lol

[–] self@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago

JSON has its issues but at least it’s only the worst of some worlds. Want to make JSON unparsable anyway, for a laugh? Try YAML, the serialization format recommended by four out of five Nordic countries!

fucking

this take is so dangerously real I’m pretty sure uttering it at work will earn you a PIP and a fistfight in the parking lot with the lead data architect

you know, normal startup shit

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 7 points 1 month ago

Try YAML, the serialization format recommended by four out of five Nordic countries

yeah there are so many fucking crazy footguns in yaml

another I quite like:

❯ ipython -c 'import yaml; d = dict(); d["d"] = d; print(yaml.safe_dump(d))'
&id001
d: *id001
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

this reminds me of some of the more cursed things I know from that hype era

(see this for some others)

[–] self@awful.systems 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sarvega, Inc., the leading provider of high-performance XML networking solutions, today announced the Sarvega XML Context™ Router, the first product to enable loosely coupled multi-point XML Web Services across wide area networks (WANs). The Sarvega XML Context Router is the first XML appliance to route XML content at wire speed based on deep content inspection, supporting publish-subscribe (pub-sub) models while simultaneously providing secure and reliable delivery guarantees.

it’s fucking delicious how thick the buzzwords are for an incredibly simple device:

  • it parses XPath quickly (for 2004 (and honestly I never knew XPath and XQuery were a bottleneck… maybe this XML thing isn’t working out))
  • it decides which web app gets what traffic, but only if the web app speaks XML, for some reason
  • it implements an event queue, maybe?
  • it’s probably a thin proprietary layer with a Cisco-esque management CLI built on appropriated open source software, all running on a BSD but in a shiny rackmount case
  • the executive class at the time really had rediscovered cocaine, and that’s why we were all forced to put up with this bullshit
  • this shit still exists but it does the same thing with a semi-proprietary YAML and too much JSON as this thing does with XML, and now it’s in the cloud, cause the executive class never undiscovered cocaine
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago

and now of course instead of people handcrafting xml documents by string-cating angle brackets and tags together in bad php files, we have people manually dash-cating yaml together in bad jinja and go template files! progress!

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago

(see this for some others)

This article appears to contain a large number of buzzwords. (July 2011)

WP:LOL. WP:LMAO even

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Xml also used to be a tech hype for a bit.

Wha... What?

I'm trying to imagine a news anchor hyping about XM-fucking-L and I'm drawing a complete blank, is this a zen riddle

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It didn't jump out of tech media containment, so it wasn't a mainstream hype thing, more a techworker hype thing. It was the data serialization standard which would save the web! Second life otoh, did massively jump containment.

[–] self@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’ve always seen XML as much more of a tech executive thing — here’s the language that’ll run your entire business but is also incredibly easy to create proprietary semantics with, ensuring you can’t be ousted without taking the company down with you! it looks like absolute shit and it’s painful to type! buy in now!

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know someone who was hired (around turn of the century) because they knew how to xml with a certain kind of then-important big systems api

the stories I’ve heard from there are hilarious

but is also incredibly ease to create proprietary semantics with

christ the shit I’ve seen with network vendors…. shibboleth NETCONF/YANG. advance warning; abyss grade 6+

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yet there are some tasks I wish I could do in NETCONF instead of the thing we're actually using, but apparently the documentation for this interface is difficult and expensive for the company to get my hands on, for reasons.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

ikwym, that’s part of the set of crimes I was pointing to

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago

XML works fine for what it is, it's just a bit verbose. Not sure it'd be my first choice for a new thing, but it's not a toxic waste dump if you're allowed to do it properly.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yes! Exactly. Good example.

[–] youngalfred@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah a huge thing at one point. Anyone use a laptop with a tochscreen?

[–] rook@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The trackpad and trackpoint of my aging linux laptop stop working if the thing gets its lid shut. The touchscreen continues to work just fine, however. It turns out that while two stupid things can’t make a good thing, they can sometimes cancel each other out.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

A handy benefit no doubt, but not quite the earth-shaking revolution the touchscreen hype-train promised at the time.

[–] youngalfred@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everyday, big thing in schools.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Of course, of course. At the time though, it was expected that this would change the face of computing - no more keyboards! No more mice! No, this is more like Star Trek where you glance down at some geometric assemblage of colored shapes and tap several in random succession to immediately bring up the data you were looking for.

That, uh, did not happen.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Aren't touch screens literally everywhere? What was the hype?

It's always so baffling to me to learn about those things because I was way too young to actually experience any of the "hype" around most of those technologies. Touch screens are cool and they penetrated society so much there are at my grocery shop, what the fuck were they supposed to do if that's not living up to the hype?

[–] o7___o7@awful.systems 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

To add to the others' comments, they were much less impressive before we had capacitive touch screens. Older resistive screens needed a good deal of mechanical force to register a press (great for longevity!) and required frequent re-calibration. They just weren't very satisfying to use compared to any modern smart phone or tablet.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago

yeah partly this

and also the other kinds of issues: touchscreens are (even now still) a vastly more complicated engineering item to add than simple toggle switches, and in many places they don't make sense or are a bad solution to pick

but in the hype of then, touchscreens everywhere! turning your lights on? touchscreen. starting your shower water running? touchscreen. opening your window? touchscreen. calling a flight attendant? touchscreen. running your microwave? touchscreen. configuring your fridge temperature? touchscreen.

so, y'know, the usual "this new technology will save us, on everything" bullshit that industries seem so prone to. same reason as why we're seeing so much llm-everywhere bullshit

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Isn’t OpenAI saying that o1 has reasoning as a specific selling point?

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

they do say that, yes. it’s as bullshit as all the other claims they’ve been making

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Which is my point, and forgive me, but I believe is the point of the research publication.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

They say a lot of stuff.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My best guess is it generates several possible replies and then does some sort of token match to determine which one may potentially be the most accurate. Not sure if I'd call that "reasoning" but I guess it could potentially improve results in some cases. With OpenAI not being so open it is hard to tell though. They've been overpromising a lot already so it may as well be just complete bullshit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes.

But the lies around them are so excessive that it's a lot easier for executives of a publicly traded company to make reasonable decisions if they have concrete support for it.

load more comments (1 replies)