Comment by drakeballew

Comment by drakeballew a day ago

This is a beautiful piece of work. The actual data or outputs seem to be more or less...trash? Maybe too strong a word. But perhaps you are outsourcing too much critical thought to a statistical model. We are all guilty of it. But some of these are egregious, obviously referential LLM dog. The world has more going on than whatever these models seem to believe.

Edit/update: if you are looking for the phantom thread between texts, believe me that an LLM cannot achieve it. I have interrogated the most advanced models for hours, and they cannot do the task to any sort of satisfactory end that a smoked-out half-asleep college freshman could. The models don't have sufficient capacity...yet.

liqilin1567 a day ago

When I saw that the trail goes through just one word like "Us/Them", "fictions" I thought it might be more useful if the trail went through concepts.

Reply View 3 replies

tmountain 18 hours ago

The links drawn between the books are “weaker than weak” (to quote Little Richard). This is akin to just thumbing the a book and saying, “oh, look, they used the word fracture and this other book used the word crumble, let’s assign a theme.” It’s a cool idea, but fails in the execution.

Reply View | 2 replies
- usefulposter 15 hours ago
  
  Yes. It's flavor-of-the-month Anthropic marketing drivel: tenuous word associations edition¹.
  ¹ Oh, that's just LLMs in general? Cool!
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  georgebcrawford 11 hours ago
  
  I spent 30 seconds and the first word that came to mind was drivel.
  As an English teacher this shit makes me hate LLMs even more. Like so much techbro nonsense, it completely ignores what makes us human.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

rtgfhyuj 21 hours ago

give it a more thorough look maybe?

https://trails.pieterma.es/trail/collective-brain/ is great

Reply View 10 replies

eloisius 20 hours ago

It’s any interesting thread for sure, but while reading through this I couldn’t help but think that the point of these ideas are for a person to read and consider deeply. What is the point of having a machine do this “thinking” for us? The thinking is the point.

Reply View | 2 replies
- DrewADesign 17 hours ago
  
  And that’s the problem with a lot of chatbot usage in the wild: it’s saving you from having to think about things where thinking about them is the point. E.g. hobby writing, homework, and personal correspondence. That’s obviously not the only usage, but it’s certainly the basis for some of the more common use cases, and I find that depressing as hell.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- rtgfhyuj 10 hours ago
  
  so consider them deeply. Why does the value diminish if discovered by a machine as long as the value is in the thinking?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
pcrh 8 hours ago

I had a look at that. The notion of a "collective brain" is similar to that of "civilization". It is not a novel notion, and the connections shown there are trivial and uninspiring.

Reply View | 0 replies
znnajdla 16 hours ago

This is a software engineering forum. Most of the engineer types here lack the critical education needed to appreciate this sort of thing. I have a literary education and I’m actually shocked at how good most of these threads are.

Reply View | 5 replies
- PinkMilkshake 13 hours ago
  
  I think most engineer types avoid that kind of analysis on purpose.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  znnajdla 12 hours ago
  
  Programmers tend to lean two ways: math-oriented or literature-oriented. The math types tend to become FAANG engineers. The literature oriented ones tend to start startups and become product managers and indie game devs and Laravel artisans.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- only-one1701 14 hours ago
  
  That doesn’t speak well towards your literary education, candidly.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  znnajdla 12 hours ago
  
  We should try posting this on a literary discussion forum and see the responses there. I expect a lot of AI FUD and envy but that’ll be evidence in this tools favor.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  only-one1701 11 hours ago
  
  lol yes that’s the only reason anyone could find this uh literary analysis less than compelling
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

what-the-grump a day ago

Build a rag with significant amount of text, extract it by key word topic, place, date, name, etc.

… realize that it’s nonsense and the LLM is not smart enough to figure out much without a reranker and a ton of technology that tells it what to do with the data.

You can run any vector query against a rag and you are guaranteed a response. With chunks that are unrelated any way.

Reply View 1 reply

electroglyph a day ago

unrelated in any way? that's not normal. have you tested the model to make sure you have sane output? unless you're using sentence-transformers (which is pretty foolproof) you have to be careful about how you pool the raw output vectors

Reply View | 0 replies

baxtr 14 hours ago

I checked 2-3 trails and have to agree.

Take for example the OODA loop. How are the connections made here of any use? Seems like the words are semantically related but the concept are not. And even if they are, so what?

I am missing the so what.

Now imagine a human had read all these books. It would have come up with something new, I’m pretty sure about that.

https://trails.pieterma.es/trail/tempo-gradient/

Reply View 1 reply

wry_durian 12 hours ago

Indeed, I'm not seeing a "so what" here. LLMs make mental models cheap, but all models are wrong, and this one is too. The inclusion of Donalla Meadows' book and the quote from The Guns of August are particularly tenuous.

Reply View | 0 replies