379
Maybe they are intelligent after all
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
379 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
8010 readers
1656 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A lot of writers just write for themselves, and don't really think or care about what other people might think when they read it. That's perfectly fine, by the way. Writing can be a worthwhile effort even if nobody ever reads it.
But if you want other people to enjoy it, then you have to keep them in mind. And honestly, this sort of feedback should be invaluable to authors, assuming it's not an AI hallucination.
LLMs are pretty shit at analysis, so the odds of this just being bullshit are high.
Yeah, I was surprised when they said it could summarize the plot and talk about the characters. To my knowledge, LLMs only memory is in how long their prompt is, so it shouldn't be able to analyze an entire novel. I'm guessing if an LLM could do something like this, it would only be because the plot was already summarized at the end of the novel.
Summarizing is entirely different from analyzing though. It's a "skill" thats baked into LLMs, because that's how they manage all information. But any analysis would be based on a summary, which will lose a massive amount of resolution.
I once asked ChatGPT for an opinion on my blog and gave the web address. It summarized some historical posts accurately enough. It was definitely making use of the content, and not just my prompt. Flattered me with saying "the author shows a curious mind". ChatGPT is good at flattery (in fact, it seems to be trained specifically to do it, and this is part of OpenAI's marketing strategy).
For the record, yes, this is a bit narcissistic, just like googling yourself. Except you do need to google yourself every once in a while to know what certain people, like employers, are going to see when they do it. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to start doing the same with ChatGPT and other popular models. No, I don't like that, either.
I just had a horrifying vision of AI SM tools that help you optimize your public presentation. Get AI critiques as well as tips for appearing more favorable. People do it because you need to be well-received by AI evaluators to get a job. Gradually social pressure evolves all public figures (famous or not) into polished cartoon figures. The real horror of the dead internet is that we'll do it to ourselves.
chatbots also usually have a database of key facts to query, and modern context windows can get very very long (with the right chatbot). but yeah the author probably imagined a lot of complexity and nuance and understanding that isn't there
Yes but actually no. LLMs can be setup in such a way where they remember previous prompts; most if not all the AI web services do not enable this by default, if they even allow it as an option.
All of that stuff is just added to their current prompt. That's how that function works.
"She listed three characters"
AI does everything in threes. Likely it just decided to not like three characters not because three characters were bad but because it always does three bullets.
It didn't "decide" to "not like" anything. It can't do either.
All output from an LLM is a "hallucination". That's the core function of the algorithm.