Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
In the current chapter of “I go looking on linkedin for sneer-bait and not jobs, oh hey literally the first thing I see is a pile of shit”
text in image
Can ChatGPT pick every 3rd letter in “umbrella”?
You’d expect “b” and “I”. Easy, right?
Nope. It will get it wrong.
Why? Because it doesn’t see letters the way we do.
We see:
u-m-b-r-e-l-l-a
ChatGPT sees something like:
“umb” | “rell” | “a”
These are tokens — chunks of text that aren’t always full words or letters.
So when you ask for “every 3rd letter,” it has to decode the prompt, map it to tokens, simulate how you might count, and then guess what you really meant.
Spoiler: if it’s not given a chance to decode tokens in individual letters as a separate step, it will stumble.
Why does this matter?
Because the better we understand how LLMs think, the better results we’ll get.
Well, its a perfect demonstration that LLMs flat-out do not think like us. Even a goddamn five-year old could work this shit out with flying colours.
Yeah exactly. Loving the dude’s mental gymnastics to avoid the simplest answer and instead spin it into moralising about promptfondling more good
LLMs cannot fail, they can only be prompted incorrectly. (To be clear, as I know there will be people who think this is good, I mean this in a derogatory way)
That’s a whole lot of words to say that it can’t spell.