alt Hacker NewsI never expected LLMs to be like an actual conversation between humans. The model is in some respects more capable and in some respects more limited than a human. I mean, one could strive for an exact replica of a human -- but for what purpose? The whole thing is a huge association machine. It is a surealistic inspiration generator for me. This is how it works at the moment, until the next break through ...
Replies
Clarifying ambiguity in questions before dedicating more resources to search and reasoning about the answer seems both essential and almost trivial to elicit via RLHF.
I'd be surprised if you can't already make current models behave like that with an appropriate system prompt.
The disconnect is that companies are trying desperately to frame LLMs as actual entities and not just an inert tech tool. AGI as a concept is the biggest example of this, and the constant push to "achieve AGI" is what's driving a lot of stock prices and investment.
A strictly machinelike tool doesn't begin answers by saying "Great question!"
> but for what purpose?
I recently introduced a non-technical person to Claude Code, and this non-human behavior was a big sticking point. They tried to talk to Claude similar as to a human, presenting it one piece of information at a time. With humans this is generally beneficial, and they will either nod for you to continue or ask clarifying questions. With Claude this does not work well, you have to infodump as much as possible in each message
So even from a perspective of "how do we make this automaton into the best tool", a more human-like conversation flow might be beneficial. And that doesn't seem beyond the technological capabilities at all, it's just not what we encourage in today's RLHF