Thread

1. nl · 1790899033 · focus · HN ↗

   > Epistemological weirdness

   > They are also notably bad at judging the historical significance of what they find.

   I use LLMs for some things that are outside the more common use-cases (in my case 3D design for 3D printing) and one thing I've noticed is that the errors it makes are so completely unlike human errors that they are hard to anticipate.

   It will do things like build perfect snap catches but put them so the the pieces they are connecting are rotated 90 degrees from how they should be. It's "dumb" error, but hard to say the model itself if dumb because it does other very hard things so perfectly.

   > seven chord groups

   This sounds a lot more like Opus 5.0 than Opus 5.5 TBH. I wonder if that was an earlier investigation because 5.5 has improved that kind of language a lot.

   1. morpheos137 · 1790902744 · focus · HN ↗

      In general llms are weak with spatial reasoning. This seems to be an unsolved problem. Probably because human language is generally imprecise spatially and humans think about spatial problems in visual terms. I wonder if having an llm make a 3d design in a format an image model could check would result in a better outcome?

      1. NiloCK · 1790905589 · focus · HN ↗

         I think that this is an unsolved problem in the same way that mangled fingers in image generation was an unsolved problem.

         Through at least Opus 4, LLMs were practically useless for authoring any sort of coherent procedural closed-curve geometry (I know this with strong confidence because of the little animated guys at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;letterspractice.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;letterspractice.com).

         Opus 5.5 can bang it all out. Possibly a deliberate RL sort of thing or maybe another surprise emergent capability.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.