Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I brought this up in a previous HN thread, it's what I call "probabilistic UX".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954719

We don't have much experience building automated systems that are non-deterministic. Normally, in computer engineering, if we couldn't predict the results of an operation, we'd consider that operation buggy, broken or at best, flaky. Building consumer user interfaces for black box magic is a whole new ballgame.




"It sorta kinda works, most of the time, when it doesn't, Retry Reboot Reinstall^W^W, and if it's still broken, you're SOL - and thats by-design, we're not fixing the product." The word you're looking for is enshittification.


> We don't have much experience building automated systems that are non-deterministic

Our brains evolved to turn chaos into patterns that help us survive. Determinism is good from that point of view and nondeterministic behaviour is discarded as useless. Nature in general operates in a deterministic way, a banana tree doesn't randomly produce kittens. AI and LLMs in particular are nothing but misinformation and IP appropriation systems. No wonder people reject them.


I bet that if you included an expensive verification step by GPT 4 a lot of errors would go away.


It always circles back to "follow the money":

- the system could theoretically trace the inputs, but then IP lawyers would eat company alive; pretending the corpus isn't pirated, so it can be cheap.

- the system could verify and re-check, but that would require a massive compute increase; spouting bullshit, so it can be cheap

- indeed a lot of answers around here go with "let's waste money by throwing it at the system until a human likes the result" - not cheap, but profitable for the provider




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: