this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
476 points (98.2% liked)

Fuck AI

8224 readers
1515 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint:

“Teach” the LLM the proper procedure for counting the Rs and tell it to commit that to a file (or as a tool call). Then from there it will suceed 100% of the time.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true learning or not. When you teach an employee to do something you give them the procedure and have them do it. If AI can be fed a procedure too, it will do it just fine even if it’s not in its true training. Does it matter if it’s consuming the procedure as prompt context everytime? Hell a lot of humans do read the procedure every time when it’s complex enough.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What the example shows is that you cannot "teach" the llm how to count the letter R, because LLMs don't work that way.

The AI company would have to solve the problem another way, let's say by recognizing that the user is asking for letter-counting, and pass that off to a different kind of algorithm that can count letters.

[–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, and that’s called a harness, which everyone uses these days. The harness increases perceived intelligence (or accuracy) by absurd amounts. You can “teach” (or the equivalent of) LLMs anything with a custom harness.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How is it teaching? Sounds like programming to me.

[–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Well the idea is you don’t need to code it yourself, you can have it do it for you. Sure it’ll have bugs the first few times, but humans also make mistakes the until they get the hang of it.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago

The difference i guess is that humans are capable of learning and producing better code as they become more expert at it.

The big tech companies are surely trying to improve AI with these "harnesses" as you call them, and you can try vibe coding them yourself.

But it seems to me like spending a lot of time adding features to a technology to try to catch edge cases, but the edge cases will never end, and you'll never be able to use it for anything except rough approximations or bullshit

[–] sqw@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

yes lets have the llm be a blurry frontend for a bunch of invisible proprietary harness programs. that surely is a valuable human endeavor

[–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca -3 points 9 hours ago

Because right now LLMs (and potentially other forms of AI) are the only technology capable of doing it. Humans can too, but are much slower and more expensive.