alt Hacker NewsEvery time I see an article like this, it's always missing --- but is it any good, is it correct? They always show you the part that is impressive - "it walked the tricky tightrope of figuring out what might be an interesting topic and how to execute it with the data it had - one of the hardest things to teach."
Then it goes on, "After a couple of vague commands (“build it out more, make it better”) I got a 14 page paper." I hear..."I got 14 pages of words". But is it a good paper, that another PhD would think is good? Is it even coherent?
When I see the code these systems generate within a complex system, I think okay, well that's kinda close, but this is wrong and this is a security problem, etc etc. But because I'm not a PhD in these subjects, am I supposed to think, "Well of course the 14 pages on a topic I'm not an expert in are good"?
It just doesn't add up... Things I understand, it looks good at first, but isn't shippable. Things I don't understand must be great?
Replies
The author goes into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper later in the article.
> Things I don't understand must be great?
Couple it with the tendency to please the user by all means and it ends up lieing to you but you won’t ever realise, unless you double check.
I think the point is we’re getting there. These models are growing up real fast. Remember 54% of US adults read at or below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
I think they get to that a couple of paragraphs later:
> The idea was good, as were many elements of the execution, but there were also problems: some of its statistical methods needed more work, some of its approaches were not optimal, some of its theorizing went too far given the evidence, and so on. Again, we have moved past hallucinations and errors to more subtle, and often human-like, concerns.
I keep trying out different models. Gemini 3 is pretty good. It’s not quite as good at one shotting answers as Grok but overall it’s very solid.
Definitely planning to use it more at work. The integrations across Google Workspace are excellent.
This is a variation of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
Truth is you still need human to review all of it, fix it where needed, guide it when it hallucinate and write correct instructions and prompts.
Without knowledge how to use this “PROBALISTIC” slot machine to have better results ypu are only wasting energy those GPUs need to run and answer questions.
Majority of ppl use LLMs incorrectly.
Majority of ppl selling LLMs as a panacea for everyting are lying.
But we need hype or the bubble will burst taking whole market with it, so shuushh me.
It's gotten more and more shippable, especially with the latest generation (Codex 5.1, Sonnet 4.5, now Opus 4.5). My metric is "wtfs per line", and it's been decreasing rapidly.
My current preference is Codex 5.1 (Sonnet 4.5 as a close second, though it got really dumb today for "some reason"). It's been good to the point where I shipped multiple projects with it without a problem (with eg https://pine.town being one I made without me writing any code).