Edit history

Two things.

1. When we aren't specific in our arguments about this technology it allows people to blow past facts to suit personal interests and insist their viewpoint is correct because their perception trumps facts that aren't clearly defined.

2. Pretending the symantics of a term aren't integral to the argument being made against it does us no favors when trying to educate people about the topic.

The algorithm in my game analogy does what it does because the parameters for its instructions are finite and well thought out and well programmed to give the same result based on pre-defined instructions and parameters.

LLM's do that same thing, but with a metric fuck ton more parameters and fewer defining instructions.

The reason they keep failing with guardrails is because they put too many unvetted parameters into the algorithm and concise and colloquial instructions in spoken language cannot account for all the variables included in those parameters.

It's a fatal design flaw but it's important to people's understanding that at the end of the day an LLM is a computer program and it does absolutely nothing unless it is instructed to do something. It won't perform tasks of it's own volition.

Pretending that we can take shortcuts in linguistics to get people to understand the technical facts doesn't really work here. I'm not saying we can't call them slop/BS.

Gullible people don't become less gullible because you changed some words.

Two things.

1. When we aren't specific in our arguments about this technology it allows people to blow past facts to suit personal interests and insist their viewpoint is correct because their perception trumps facts that aren't clearly defined.

2. Pretending the symantics of a term aren't integral to the argument being made against it does us no favors.

The algorithm in my game analogy does what it does because the parameters for its instructions are finite and well thought out and well programmed to give the same result based on pre-defined instructions and parameters.

LLM's do that same thing, but with a metric fuck ton more parameters and fewer defining instructions.

The reason they keep failing with guardrails is because they put too many unvetted parameters into the algorithm and concise and colloquial instructions in spoken language cannot account for all the variables included in those parameters.

It's a fatal design flaw but it's important to people's understanding that at the end of the day an LLM is a computer program and it does absolutely nothing unless it is instructed to do something. It won't perform tasks of it's own volition.

Pretending that we can take shortcuts in linguistics to get people to understand the technical facts doesn't really work here. I'm not saying we can't call them slop/BS.

Gullible people don't become less gullible because you changed some words.

Two things.

1. When we aren't specific in our arguments about this technology it allows people to blow past facts to suit personal interests and insist their viewpoint is correct because their perception trumps facts that aren't clearly defined.

2. Pretending the symantics of a term aren't integral to the argument being made against it does us no favors.

The algorithm in my game analogy does what it does because the parameters for its instructions are finite and well thought out and well programmed to give the same result based on pre-defined instructions and parameters.

LLM's do that same thing, but with a metric fuck ton more parameters and fewer defining instructions.

The reason they keep failing with guardrails is because they put too may unvetted parameters into the algorithm and concise and colloquial instructions in spoke. language cannot account for all the variables included in those parameters.

It's a fatal design flaw but it's important to people's understanding that at the end of the day an LLM is a computer program and it does absolutely nothing unless it is instructed to do something. It won't perform tasks of it's own volition.

Pretending that we can take shortcuts in linguistic to get people to understand the technical facts doesn't really work here. I'm not saying we can't call them slop/BS.

Gullible people don't become less gullible because you changed some words.

Two things.

1. When we aren't specific in our arguments about this technology it allows people to blow past facts to suit personal interests and insist their viewpoint is correct because their perception Trump's facts that aren't clearly defined.

2. Pretending the symantics of a term aren't integral to the argument being made against it does us no favors.

The algorithm in my game analogy does what it does because the parameters for its instructions are finite and well thought out and well programmed to give the same result based on pre-defined instructions and parameters.

LLM's do that same thing, but with a metric fuck ton more parameters and fewer defining instructions.

The reason they keep failing with guardrails is because they put too may unvetted parameters into the algorithm and concise and colloquial instructions in spoke. language cannot account for all the variables included in those parameters.

It's a fatal design flaw but it's important to people's understanding that at the end of the day an LLM is a computer program and it does absolutely nothing unless it is instructed to do something. It won't perform tasks of it's own volition.

Pretending that we can take shortcuts in linguistic to get people to understand the technical facts doesn't really work here. I'm not saying we can't call them slop/BS.

Gullible people don't become less gullible because you changed some words.