All I see is people chatting with an LLM as if it was a person. “How bad is this on a scale
of 1 to 100”, you’re just doomed to get some random answer based solely on whatever context is being fed in the input and that you probably don’t know the extent of it.
Trying to make the LLM “see its mistakes” is a pointless exercise. Getting it to “promise” something is useless.
The issue with LLMs working with human languages is people eventually wanting to apply human things to LLMs such as asking why as if the LLM knows of its own decision process. It only takes an input and generates an output, it won’t be able to have any “meta thought” explanation about why it outputted X and not Y in the previous prompt.
Yeah the interaction are pure waste of time I agree, make it write an apology letter? WTF! For me it looks like a fast track way to learn environment segregation, & secret segregation. Data is lost, learn from it and there are tool already in place like git like alembic for proper development.
I wonder if it can be used legally against the company behind the model, though. I doubt that it’s possible, but having a “your own model says it effed up my data” could give some beef to a complaint. Or at least to a request to get a refund on the fees.
My god, that’s a lot to process. A couple that stand out:
Comments proposing to use github as the database backup. This is Keyword Architecture, and these people deserve everything they get.
The Replit model can also send out communications? It’s just a matter of time before some senior exec dies on the job but nobody notices because their personal LLM keeps emailing reports that nobody reads.
Vibe Coding Day 8
All I see is people chatting with an LLM as if it was a person. “How bad is this on a scale of 1 to 100”, you’re just doomed to get some random answer based solely on whatever context is being fed in the input and that you probably don’t know the extent of it.
Trying to make the LLM “see its mistakes” is a pointless exercise. Getting it to “promise” something is useless.
The issue with LLMs working with human languages is people eventually wanting to apply human things to LLMs such as asking why as if the LLM knows of its own decision process. It only takes an input and generates an output, it won’t be able to have any “meta thought” explanation about why it outputted X and not Y in the previous prompt.
Yeah the interaction are pure waste of time I agree, make it write an apology letter? WTF! For me it looks like a fast track way to learn environment segregation, & secret segregation. Data is lost, learn from it and there are tool already in place like git like alembic for proper development.
the apology letter(s) is what made me think this was satire. using shame to punish “him” like a child is an interesting troubleshooting method.
the lying robot hasn’t heel-turned, any truth you’ve gleaned has been accidental.
It doesn’t look like satire unfortunately
I wonder if it can be used legally against the company behind the model, though. I doubt that it’s possible, but having a “your own model says it effed up my data” could give some beef to a complaint. Or at least to a request to get a refund on the fees.
How bad is this on a scale of sad emoji to eggplant emoji.
Children are replacing us, it’s terrifying.
My god….
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha AHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahaH
Having read the entire thread, I can only assume this to be sarcasm.
My god, that’s a lot to process. A couple that stand out:
Comments proposing to use github as the database backup. This is Keyword Architecture, and these people deserve everything they get.
The Replit model can also send out communications? It’s just a matter of time before some senior exec dies on the job but nobody notices because their personal LLM keeps emailing reports that nobody reads.
This whole thread reads like slop.