Machine translations are often brought up as a gotcha whenever I criticize LLMs.
-
@grishka One problem with LLMs is that they tend to translate and summarise what’s likely to be in the source text, not what’s actually in the text.
This means that when translating/summarising a text that deviates from the usual content in a subject or genre, the LLM will push it towards the common.
Using the result to understand the original contents is therefore very risky. For example, when screening texts, ”incorrect” content might be ”corrected”, increasing the likelihood it will pass.
-
Let me ask you this: It's your birthday.
5 of your friends met some days before and wrote a song for you. It's not really good, the text doesn't even rhyme...but they did this for you and they had fun.
They enjoyed the act of creating.5 other friends wrote a prompt and pressed a button to generate a song.
Which song will you remember?
-
@Tekchip my walls are full of art by humans that some would call terrible... who the fuck cares? they have love and craft and pain and power from the hands and soul of a human creator. they are beautiful. i fucking love bad art.
slop generation is the nothingness.
just write your toot from your heart, fuck the machine. being human is fine.
@Gargron -
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
failed technologies, like Zeppelin
-
@ClipHead @melioristicmarie @Gargron which this?
"there is no value in the average."
or
"my walls are full of art by humans that some would call terrible... who the fuck cares?"
Can't have it both ways.
-
@Gargron It is a technology that humanity has been seeking for a long time. At least since the 1950s, with Turing and his colleagues.
LLMs are Shannon 1948 as far as the theory goes (building on Markov, but adding computer technology). With some compression techniques.
But I think you're talking about something else entirely, not purely syntactical.
-
-
@Gargron would you know if you've seen a good outcome of an LLM? You'd somehow be able to identify when the LLM got it right?
I assure you you've experienced good LLM output and don't even know it. Because that's what good LLM output looks like. Indistinguishable from human output.
Your examples are perhaps false equivalencies. Take asbestos. We didn't abolish insulation. We developed better, safer insulation. We didn't stop dying food colors, we just developed safer dyes etc.
@Tekchip @Gargron the tiny potential for very rare good outcomes are not worth the constant poisoning of humanity's collective information corpus.
For every "good" generated content there are dozens of thousands of terrible slop that are difficult to separate from genuine useful information or material when doing research or code reviews, etc.
Not to mention that these "good" outcomes are much costlier to humanity than creating by hand, with no benefit.
-
@ClipHead @melioristicmarie @Gargron which this?
"there is no value in the average."
or
"my walls are full of art by humans that some would call terrible... who the fuck cares?"
Can't have it both ways.
@Tekchip
so... is this a slop account? am i tooting with cheapgpt?are you a human playing with toys you do not comprehend?
dear dogs, may i have the confidence of a mediocre "white" man.
so... l.l.m.s tokenize english text... and then calculate an average.
humans making shitty art is qualitatively perfection in comparison to word salad from a calculator. when you enter this into wannabe deep seek... i will be waiting with bated breath for the token response. ; )
-
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
@Gargron where is the perceptron
-
@df No, this is marketing. OpenAI, Google, Anthropic &co want you to believe that what they're doing is artificial intelligence. My professional opinion is that LLMs are a dead end technology to creating actual intelligence. And if any of those companies did create actual intelligence for the purposes they pursue, it would be slavery, for which I cannot advocate.
@Gargron they'll never create intelligence because intelligence requires will and they do not understand will. they dont even posses one of their own: their own behaviour is driven by feelings and shaped by a commercial playbook. there is zero chance they will ever create intelligence.
-
@ClipHead @melioristicmarie @Gargron which this?
"there is no value in the average."
or
"my walls are full of art by humans that some would call terrible... who the fuck cares?"
Can't have it both ways.
@Tekchip
There's no point in explaining, if you don't get "this", tbh. -
I have the impression that primarily anglophone people don't read as much translated literature, because so much good literature already exists in their language, so this issue may not be as familiar within that demographic. As someone who did not grow up anglophone, I can tell you there is a world of difference between a good and a bad translation even when done by humans. Machine translations are not even on the scale.
@Gargron there is a great essay on translation by Simon Leys
-
@Tekchip @Gargron the tiny potential for very rare good outcomes are not worth the constant poisoning of humanity's collective information corpus.
For every "good" generated content there are dozens of thousands of terrible slop that are difficult to separate from genuine useful information or material when doing research or code reviews, etc.
Not to mention that these "good" outcomes are much costlier to humanity than creating by hand, with no benefit.
@Kiloku @Gargron the problem is you want to assume they are rare outcomes. I don't believe they are. Unfortunately that's where we're at an impasse. It's literally impossible to measure the good outcomes.
I agree the environmental outcome is terrible. I don't like that part. What we can look forward to is the technology improving. General computers used to use WAY more power than they do now. The same is going to happen with LLM technology. Hopefully sooner than later. Folks are working on it.
-
@Tekchip @Gargron the tiny potential for very rare good outcomes are not worth the constant poisoning of humanity's collective information corpus.
For every "good" generated content there are dozens of thousands of terrible slop that are difficult to separate from genuine useful information or material when doing research or code reviews, etc.
Not to mention that these "good" outcomes are much costlier to humanity than creating by hand, with no benefit.
@Tekchip @Gargron (also, most of what "AI" boosters *think* is good generated content is actually laughably bad to anyone who knows the subject matter of the content it generates. I'm certain you've shared something that you thought was indistinguishable from human created content that other people knew and saw a bunch of problems with as soon as they examined it further than a cursory glance)
-
@Tekchip
There's no point in explaining, if you don't get "this", tbh. -
@Tekchip
so... is this a slop account? am i tooting with cheapgpt?are you a human playing with toys you do not comprehend?
dear dogs, may i have the confidence of a mediocre "white" man.
so... l.l.m.s tokenize english text... and then calculate an average.
humans making shitty art is qualitatively perfection in comparison to word salad from a calculator. when you enter this into wannabe deep seek... i will be waiting with bated breath for the token response. ; )
@melioristicmarie @ClipHead @Gargron lol are you an LLM or just don't care to review my profile? Shoot even do a google search. I'm easy to find. Seems like you've lost the plot.
-
@Kiloku @Gargron the problem is you want to assume they are rare outcomes. I don't believe they are. Unfortunately that's where we're at an impasse. It's literally impossible to measure the good outcomes.
I agree the environmental outcome is terrible. I don't like that part. What we can look forward to is the technology improving. General computers used to use WAY more power than they do now. The same is going to happen with LLM technology. Hopefully sooner than later. Folks are working on it.
-
True story: I wanted to read the novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" by Victor Hugo some years back, so I went to the bookstore and they had two translations. The first had a serious-looking cover and the other had a trashy-looking one, so naturally I bought the former. Started to read it. It was garbage! So I went back and exchanged for the trashy-looking book. A wonderful translation!
Moral of the story: you can't judge a book by its cover.
Also, translation is art.
@jawarajabbi @Gargron Similarly, I've read two different translations of Les Miserables and fragments of several others, and they're drastically different, despite all being professional human translators working from the same source text and translating it to the same language.
(The oldest ones are really awkward to read now. They're also old enough to be in the public domain, so every random set of Serious Classic Books is going to print one of the the 1860s or 1880s versions instead of a more modern translation they'd have to pay royalties for.)
-
