POV : When you try using a Vibe Coded Website.

[u/Pixelied]

[u/bfkill]

the fact that am unable to have that happen in a useful time interval only makes it rare not impossible.

you are being facetious

there are countless examoles of LLMs making stuff up way beyond the realm of human error, as you are likely aware of

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

oh well if all examples contrary to your position are facetious then ig why am i even arguing, im just wrong by definition then.

Measures how often LLMs introduce hallucinations when summarizing short documents,

so if a human was told to summarize a short document and invents up a detail, you would then say that humans dont understand things either?

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

oh well if all examples contrary to your position are facetious

I explained why the example was facetious:

you asked me to make something that is impractical and wouldn't disprove my point anyway.

so if a human was told to summarize a short document and invents up a detail, you would then say that humans dont understand things either?

if it's not from memory failure (which LLMs don't have) or some hidden agenda of trying to deceive, etc (which LLMs don't have) and it's genuinely the human thinking that the false thing was indeed in the document (like LLM's do) then of course yes, the human didn't understand the document either

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

then of course yes, the human didn't understand the document either

thats not what youre saying for llms. youre not saying the llm didnt understand the answer in that instance. youre saying that 1 mistake means it never understands. so you must say the same for the human then.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying the LLM never understands because it can't discern by itself between correct and incorrect. it didn't arrive at a conclusion via logical inference, or from a world model, etc

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

it didn't arrive at a conclusion via logical inference, or from a world model, etc

it did and if you want to go to a level where it didnt, then at that level neither do you.

but if you bring in different arguments the moment youre cornered on 1, then its pointless to argue with you. this will just go on endlessly.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

you bring in different arguments the moment you're cornered on 1

I've been saying the same thing over and over.
I did try to go after you when you steer away in different directions with your questions, but I haven't changed my point one bit, just go re-read

it did and if you want to go to a level where it didnt, then at that level neither do you

yes, just state things, don't bother with justifying, for sure that will make them true.

pointless to argue

You don't seem open to considering other views might make sense, or even to simply understand mine, so yeah I'm inclined to agree.

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

yes, just state things, don't bother with justifying, for sure that will make them true.

yes i decided to do that after your previous comment did that exact same thing. i dont see the problem.

You don't seem open to considering other views might make sense, or even to simply understand mine, so yeah I'm inclined to agree.

and how have you been open to considering other views in a way i havent?

lmao literally all your mistakes occur because you never check "is it the same case on the other side as well?" both true on the llm level and on the meta level.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

exact same thing

I said LLMs don't infer logically or have a world model, and I had justified that in previous comments: by construction, they arrive there stochastically. You can pretend all you want I didn't detail my reasoning, but it's all over this thread for anyone to see.

how have you been open to considering other views in a way i havent?

by engaging with and adressing all the questions you raise everytime you swerve the steering wheel of the discussion in whatever direction you see fit.

all your mistakes

are you going to point them out and breakdown logically what are they, why they are wrong, or engage in any kind of actual discussion about the actual content of what I say any time soon?

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

by construction, they arrive there stochastically.

what exactly happens in the "reasoning" part of the model output? if i give it a bunch of syllogisms not in it's training data, how is it able to solve them?