News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The foolishness of "natural language programming" (1978) by skeledrew on Saturday October 24, 2026 @12:30AM (#50218372)
There are of course parallels. Anyone who's done ML should be able to see it at least. But yes, there are fundamental differences in methodology due to the mode and level of access: with a human, the only way is to go through the senses and there's no - easy - way to affect the learning substrate; with a LLM, data is directly injected into the substrate, which is also human-architected.
Re:The foolishness of "natural language programming" (1978) by LoganDark on Saturday October 24, 2026 @11:28PM (#50228009)
Organic beings have more than just the senses, they also have higher level concepts and complex internal incentives. This is more important than the senses being the only method of access, I think.

Language models currently are mutated in the direction of exactly producing the desired output data, but gradually enough that they generalize across inputs in a way that appears understanding. It is more similar to compression, though, at least before a randomizing sampling strategy is applied during decode.

Anyway, circling back to my original topic: no organic being has the capability to integrate all the data arriving from their senses! They typically get more and more selective with experience, picking out only the pieces of information that are still important. Some are more selective than they're supposed to be, by choice or not (such as with dissociative disorders). In any case, the raw quantity of data coming through the senses becomes almost entirely irrelevant.