[TUHS] Re: On the unreliability of LLM-based search results (was: Listing of early Unix source code from the Computer History Museum)

It's been going on a for a long time, even before AI. The amount of cargo cult programming I've seen over the past ~ 10 years is extremely discouraging. Look up something on Stack Overflow and copy/paste it without understanding it. How much better is that than relying on AI? Not much in my opinion. (Boy, am I glad I retired recently.) Arnold Luther Johnson <luther.johnson(a)makerlisp.com> wrote: > I think when no-one notices anymore, how wrong automatic information is, > and how often, it will have effectively redefined reality, and humans, > who have lost the ability to reason for themselves, will declare that AI > has met and exceeded human intelligence. They will be right, partly > because of AI's improvements, but to a larger extent, because we will > have forgotten how to think. I think AI is having disastrous effects on > the education of younger generations right now, I see it in my > workplace, every day. > > On 05/31/2025 12:31 PM, andrew(a)humeweb.com wrote: >> generally, i rate norman’s missives very high on the believability scale. >> but in this case, i think he is wrong. >> >> if you take as a baseline, the abilities of LLMs (such as earlier versions of ChatGP?) 2-3 years ago >> was quite suspect. certainly better than mark shaney, but not overwhelmingly. >> >> those days are long past. modern systems are amazingly adept. not necessarily intelligent, >> but they can (but not always) pass realistic tests, pass SAT tests and bar exams, math olympiad tests >> and so on. and people can use them to do basic (but realistic) data analysis including experimental design, >> generate working code, and run that code against synthetic data and produce visual output. >> >> sure, there are often mistakes. the issue of hullucinations is real. but where we are now >> is almost astonishing, and will likely get MUCH better in the next year or three. >> >> end-of-admonishment >> >> andrew >> >>> On May 26, 2025, at 9:40 AM, Norman Wilson <norman(a)oclsc.org> wrote: >>> >>> G. Branden Robinson: >>> >>> That's why I think Norman has sussed it out accurately. LLMs are >>> fantastic bullshit generators in the Harry G. Frankfurt sense,[1] >>> wherein utterances are undertaken neither to enlighten nor to deceive, >>> but to construct a simulacrum of plausible discourse. BSing is a close >>> cousin to filibustering, where even plausibility is discarded, often for >>> the sake of running out a clock or impeding achievement of consensus. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> That's exactly what I had in mind. >>> >>> I think I had read Frankfurt's book before I first started >>> calling LLMs bullshit generators, but I can't remember for >>> sure. I don't plan to ask ChatGPT (which still, at least >>> sometimes, credits me with far greater contributions to Unix >>> than I have actually made). >>> >>> >>> Here's an interesting paper I stumbled across last week >>> which presents the case better than I could: >>> >>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 >>> >>> To link this back to actual Unix history (or something much >>> nearer that), I realized that `bullshit generator' was a >>> reasonable summary of what LLMs do after also realizing that >>> an LLM is pretty much just a much-fancier and better-automated >>> descendant of Mark V Shaney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V._Shaney >>> >>> Norman Wilson >>> Toronto ON