Re:Three Inverse Laws of AI
by atleastoptimal on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @06:59PM
(#48029888)
What is fundamental to LLM's that make it impossible for them to infer intent?
All the limitations you are describing with respect to LLM's are the same as humans. Would a human tripping up on an ambiguously worded question mean they are always just faking their thinking?
“We see emotion.”—We do not see facial contortions and make inferences from them … to joy, grief, boredom. We describe a face immediately as sad, radiant, bored, even when we are unable to give any other description of the features. (Wittgenstein 1967, §225)
Re:Three Inverse Laws of AI
by Eisenstein on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @07:18PM
(#48030043)
Why can a colony of ants do things beyond any capabilities of the ants they contain? No ant can make a decision, but the colony can make complex ones. Large systems composed of simple mechanisms become more than the sum of their parts. Economies, weather, and immune systems, to name a few, all work this way.
Re:Three Inverse Laws of AI
by jason_oster on Wednesday May 06, 2026 @02:47AM
(#48033074)
Systems thinking is severely underrepresented in HN comments.
Faking it is fine, sure, until it can’t fake it anymore. Leading the question towards the intended result is very much what I mean: we intrinsically want them to succeed so we prime them to reflect what we want to see.
This is literally no different than emulating anything intelligent or what we might call sentience, even emotions as I said up thread...