this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
533 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
85297 readers
3949 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that it can't tell the difference between a prompt and part of the data it is examining really kills your argument.
Also it's a word probability matrix, not actually reasoning or understanding. It looks at all the words it is fed, and comes up with other words that are most likely to be near those. That's why these tricks work. It injects noise that interferes with those probabilities
I mean is that so different from what we do? My boss says "tools are in the bed", he could mean an actual bed where people sleep, maybe we're demoing a house and he placed the tools on a bed. But probably he means the bed of his pickup truck. I assign a probability to each and take the meaning that is most probable.
Yes it is different, because you can reason that out using the context of the situation. An LLM only has the words sent to it, and no ability to analyze whether what it is saying makes sense.
It's just: you said bed and told, here's some other words that commonly show up near the word bed, if there's enough smut in it's training, it might go a very different direction than your expecting.
Why do you believe that? Where did you "learn" that?
That thing you're calling a fact is not in fact a fact.
It very much is. This is a well documented issue with the very design of these LLMs
And yet the LLMs that I use actually do distinguish, in my actual real life experience.
So you're telling me the sky is orange while I'm literally looking outside the window and seeing that it is not.
You might have licked it getting them to ignore someone you didn't want, but they still take in both the prompt and the data as one input.
And since these work like a black box, your experience doesn't mean much because you're not seeing the actual inner workings.
I'm telling you the sky is blue, but you want to argue because there's a curtain in front of your window blocking it from your sight. But what's behind that curtain is well documented regardless of your experience.