I'll summarize my position in case you're confused:

* You said that humans are just as hallucinatory as LLMs when speaking about anything other than their flat or kids, and I think this is incorrect, because LLMs don't model "facts" at all.

* So even if a human you're conversing with is purely reciting memorized facts back to you and not actually creatively thinking or "testing reality" at all (which, I repeat, is a wild claim), that person would not in any way be hallucinating in the same way an LLM does.

* You then claimed that 99% of people learn by memorizing facts, not by testing reality. I think this is false on its face for multiple reasons, the most obvious one being that humans learn in varied, complex ways, and so it's nonsensical to treat a person as only being able to learn via a single method.

Where did I go wrong? I'm happy to be set straight with facts/sources if I'm incorrect.

Given that Nitter et al are now mostly gone, please stop posting Twitter links to HN, as it appears to be against the site rules.

I didn’t ask for a proof, I asked for a source, and it is not obvious to me. Your claim is that “humans are just as hallucinatory [as LLMs] when speaking about pretty much anything other than their flat or kids.” This is a quite an outlandish claim to make given that LLMs hallucinate literally every single thing they produce; as I said previously they have no concept of “truth,” or “fact.”

> https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/onud4u/anon_research

I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with this link but posting an image of an anonymous message board with people using ableist slurs is not a great look.

I have spoken to janitors and taxi drivers and had great intellectual conversations with many of them. Are you trying to say that they aren’t as smart on average as a Y Combinator employee? Because I’ve met some pretty stupid YC employees.

> Em... I think it is relevant. In my mental model, an LLM is basically a giant hash table, so memorizing is about 90% of what it does.

You specifically said “memorizing facts,” which an LLM definitely does not do at all.

But as I said, I also disagree with your assertion. Pretty much the entire first several years of a child’s life consists solely of learning through testing reality, and we continue to test reality in other ways as we grow. And to say that 99% of people learn by any single method seems obviously false; we all learn through several different methods, depending on our brains and the particular situation at hand, and a portion of the learning that every person does is via testing reality.

Do you have a source for this? I vehemently disagree.

> 99% of people learn by memorising facts, not by testing reality.

I disagree with this too, but whether or not it’s true, LLMs don’t learn via either of these methods, so it’s not relevant to the discussion.

There are, at minimum, tens of Twitter links that I see daily which make it to the first couple of pages of the site. A lot of them are AI-related content, which seems to be popular there.

> And in case an X submission is genuinely interesting, it won't be hard to access or infer the content from the comments or other sources.

I don’t want to have to do this. I think we should just disallow Twitter links for posts.

“It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.“

There don’t appear to be workarounds for Twitter anymore.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

The video was not focused on performance per watt at all, and the best attempt that the video makes at measuring performance per watt actually shows the opposite: that the 5090 system is more efficient than the Mac.

When he's running the 27B model, at about 5:02, he shows that the Mac Studio is pulling 251.5W, and the PC is pulling 315.3W.

Then he shows the results:

Mac: 27.62 tok/s PC: 40.92 tok/s

Doing the math, we arrive at 0.11 tokens/W for the Mac, and 0.13 tokens/W for the PC. The PC is about 20% more efficient.

The only other time he even shows the power usage at all is near the beginning, running a 4B model which is trivially small for both systems.

So once again, I ask, what are the sources for your performance/watt claim?

Later, when he realized that this was a stupid idea and that his amazing business acumen resulted in him drastically overpaying, he tried to back out of the sale by giving the excuse that the number of bots/spam posts/etc were more than he thought. According to the agreement that he had signed, this was not a valid reason to back out of the deal. His lawyers advised him that he’d probably lose in court, hence he was “forced to” buy the site as your article states.

I am aware of Mamdani using that phrase approximately 5 years before he ran for NYC mayor. Who else has said that?

To the extent that an LLM generates something factual or realistic, it's doing so either accidentally, or because of the various band-aids that the grandparent post describes which will never fully solve the problem.

I want to follow the guy who tracked Elon's jet and documented its fuel usage and CO2 emissions. Oops, can't make that part of my "curated experience" on Twitter. So much for free speech absolutism.

The point is that when you're subject to the whims of an irrational asshole, you can't have any assurance that your curated experience will stay consistent. For this reason alone, Twitter is worse than Reddit.

But I don't use either site anymore at all.

I never said any such thing. Please don’t misrepresent my words.

No.

> Do you think drug users are bad people

No, no one is a bad person only because they use drugs.

> or using drugs is condemnable

As a general statement, no.

But my answer is yes, your actions are condemnable, if you decide to let drugs affect your mental state in any way as you’re making important decisions that affect other people.

For example, if you’re making safety decisions for a vehicle that’s being manufactured. Or if you are making pretty much any decision at all for a company that you run which makes medical devices that are implanted in people's bodies. Or if you’re deciding to gut a government program that is responsible for feeding or medicating thousands of people (meaning that your decisions can directly lead to thousands of deaths).

Do you think an emotionally inept billionare Nazi with a drug problem should have been in charge of deciding whether poor people from other countries (who are often non-white) continue to receive life-saving aid? Do you think if that person makes the decision to cut that aid, killing those people, it's appropriate for him to brag about it publicly using the term "wood chipper" as a metaphor?

Option B: a power tripping drug-addled Nazi billionaire owns the entire site and can change the site behavior for every user on a whim, with no recourse.

This doesn’t seem like a hard choice to make.

> There are news that are circulating much faster on Twitter than anywhere else (for example about war in Ukraine).

I am certain that Twitter is not the only place where you can find these updates, if you really care for up-to-the-minute news. But I don’t.

> There are people and companies that post only on Twitter and nowhere else (especially in tech).

These people and companies are (knowingly or unknowingly) supporting a Nazi billionaire and they are not worth paying any attention to until they change their behavior.