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. komodo99 · 1790965265 · focus · HN ↗

         There's an interesting comparison in the creative/literary end of llm output too, they're in my experience, dreadful with anatomy. Like, it knows humans have hands, heads, etc, but often times a seemingly limited concept of how anything is connected, or degrees of freedom. (e.g., Why yes, certainly there are many examples of humans rotating their torsos 180º at the hip, seems perfectly cromulent)

         I honestly don't know if an image model would help, or if it might analyze the output and go "13 fingers? ship it!" anyway.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.