[mattbee]

What a ridiculous response, to scold the GP for criticising today's AI because tomorrow's might be better. Sure, it might! But it ain't here yet buddy.

Lots of us are interested in technology that's actually available, and we can all read date stamps on comments.

[soulofmischief]

You're projecting that I am scolding OP, but I'm not. My language was neutral and precise. I presented no judgment, but gave OP the tools to better clarify their argument and express valid, actionable criticism instead of wholesale criticizing "AI" in a manner so imprecise as to reduce the relevance and effectiveness of their argument.

> But it ain't here yet buddy . . . we can all read date stamps on comments.

That has no bearing on the general trajectory that we are currently on in computer science and informatics. Additionally, your language is patronizing and dismissive, trading substance for insult. This is generally frowned upon in this community.

You failed to actually address my comment, both by failing to recognize that it was mainly about using the correct terminology instead of criticizing an entire branch of research that extends far beyond transformers or LLMs, and by failing to establish why a rapidly evolving landscape does not mean that certain generalizations cannot yet be made, unless they are presented with several constraints and caveats, which includes not making temporally-invariant claims about capabilities.

I would ask that you reconsider your approach to discourse here, so that we can avoid this thread degenerating into an emotional argument.

[mattbee]

The GP was very precise in the experience they shared, and I thought it was interesting.

They were obviously not trying to make a sweeping comment about the entire future of the field.

Are you using ChatGPT to write your loquacious replies?

[soulofmischief]

> They were obviously not trying to make a sweeping comment about the entire future of the field

OP said “AI can very efficiently apply common patterns to vast amounts of code, but it has no inherent "idea" of what it's doing.”

I'm not going to patronize you by explaining why this is not "very precise", or why its lack of temporal caveats is an issue, as I've already done so in an earlier comment. If you're still confused, you should read the sentence a few times until you understand. OP did not even mention which specific model they tested, and did not provide any specific prompt example.

> Are you using ChatGPT to write your loquacious replies?

If you can't handle a few short paragraphs as a reply, or find it unworthy of your time, you are free to stop arguing. The Hacker News guidelines actually encourage substantive responses.

I also assume that in the future, accusing a user of using ChatGPT will be against site guidelines, so you may as well start phasing that out of your repertoire now.

Here are some highlights from the Hacker News guidelines regarding comments:

- Don't be snarky

- Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

- Assume good faith

- Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[anonymars]

This is a lot of words, but does any of it contradict this:

> AI can very efficiently apply common patterns to vast amounts of code, but it has no inherent "idea" of what it's doing.”

Are you saying that AI does have an inherent idea of what it's doing or is doing more than that? Today?

We're in an informal discussion forum. I don't think the bar we're looking for is some rigorous deductive proof. The above matches my experience as well. Its a handy applied interactive version of an Internet search.

If someone has a different experience that would be interesting. But this just seems like navel-gazing over semantics.

[soulofmischief]

> Are you saying that AI does have an inherent idea of what it's doing or is doing more than that?

No. I stated that OP cannot make that kind of blanket, non-temporally constrained statements about artificial intelligence.

> We're in an informal discussion forum. I don't think the bar we're looking for is some rigorous deductive proof

We're in a technology-oriented discussion forum, the minimum bar to any claim should be that it is supported by evidence, otherwise it should be presented as what it is: opinion.

> this just seems like navel-gazing over semantics.

In my opinion, conversation is much easier when we can agree that words should mean something. Imprecise language matched with an authoritative tone can mislead an audience. This topic in particular is rife with imprecise and uninformed arguments, and so we should take more care to use our words correctly, not less.

Furthermore, my argument goes beyond semantics, as it also deals with the importance of constraints when making broad, unbacked claims.