‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

What would a serious AI product look like?

176 points · 84 comments · lumpa

  1. awakeasleep · · focus · HN ↗
    I have been dwelling on the "No First-Person Output" problem.

    I fully agree with the author's point that it's an incoherent interface for a tool. But more than that, it's a constant irritating reminder to me that these LLMs aren't actually thinking or synthesizing new ideas. The LLM is fundamentally not a person, and does not have a human's context, so representing itself with human pronouns and speech patterns is fundamentally contradictory and inaccurate. Author gets into that with the apologies, but once you start noticing it, it's everywhere.

    If these programs were actually capable of thinking, and committed to veractiy, they would represent themselves in a new way, and it would be insightful and interesting. We the users wouldn't have comfortable and misleading language masking the 'alien intelligence' and it would be a weird adjustment, but we would be adjusting instead of pretending.

    1. thisoneworks · · focus · HN ↗
      I would disagree with this. There have been several instances where the effective use of this First-Person language has had measurable gains in success rates across tasks. The effective usage of this First-Person language for communication and steering between a model/agent and a human is entirely different than whether the model itself can "think" - that does not matter for the former to happen.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.