Where I work, my boss decided to make an application that uses AI to score long text field entries to ensure required information is present.
The AI lacks the ability to extract nuance and implicit information, which means entires end up being long winded and repeatitive. For each requirement its looking for, it must be explicity expressed-- it's quite unnatural, and almost feels like solving a puzzle, to which the obvious solution is to write a comment, then give it and the AI feedback to a failing comment to AI, so it can generate the proper structure the rubric-AI is looking for.
LLMs are statistically driven, and I can only imagine having the AI rewrite the comment produces a result that's more statistically fitting to the model than if any given human were to write it. So, it might mean, yeah, LLMs are better at writing resumes that the LLM can successfully classify-- are they better for a human to consume? Who knows.
Campbell believed all stories were the Hero's Journey in some convoluted manner or another. Could tell him you tripped down the stairs, and he'd say something like, 'yes, but going down those stairs again would be you learning to conquor your fears, thus resulting in a more well rounded person.'
Or you could say 'I should stop drinking milk, because I'm somewhat intolerant' and he'd say, 'ahh, yes, you're in the middle of the hero's journey, on the precibus of learning to set your desires aside for the betterment of your health'
Any story with conflict becomes the hero's journey, and what stories worth telling don't have some kind of conflict. 'Proto-story' nonsense.
Why's these seen as being difficilt to write? It's a giant switch statement that recurses. This is less indicative of AI coming a long way and more of programmers never working on a program that stores types as data, this being the most common and rote pattern that exists.
Yes, and it starts with some rich guy wanting to live forever, and he's 'heroically interfacing himself with the network to prevent it from hallucinating.' And then the whole process becomes common place, but eventually forms a class segregation of sorts, where the types of hallucinations you're allowed to resolve are based on your education, social standing, etc. An interesting afterlife I suppose, matrix purgatory.
Idk how you can conclude it's a problem with the concept of private fields when the giant shiner is Proxy not reflecting on them like you'd expect.
It's borederline clickbait, or selfbait, as the author believes they've contributed to the ever shuffling stinky pile of hot takes that exist in the web world.
It's really not as exciting to say Proxy, a niche class, than saying there's a problem with a concept of something every day, like private fields.
I doubt the vast majority of you have any experiene with Proxy, but OOP? Im sure you've brooded on a few hottakes about that in your careers.
Saying we develop sentences one word at a time seems wrong. Sure, it might appear so when we're writing out text, lag of input, but if you spend any time meditating on your own thoughts it becomes apparent that it's more of chunks of words, clauses, or the idea, that are formed followed by a sweeping compulsion to think the words in their entirety.
The concept is conceptualized and then entire phrases resonate with said concet
The AI lacks the ability to extract nuance and implicit information, which means entires end up being long winded and repeatitive. For each requirement its looking for, it must be explicity expressed-- it's quite unnatural, and almost feels like solving a puzzle, to which the obvious solution is to write a comment, then give it and the AI feedback to a failing comment to AI, so it can generate the proper structure the rubric-AI is looking for.
LLMs are statistically driven, and I can only imagine having the AI rewrite the comment produces a result that's more statistically fitting to the model than if any given human were to write it. So, it might mean, yeah, LLMs are better at writing resumes that the LLM can successfully classify-- are they better for a human to consume? Who knows.
reply