Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- No point in reading anything AI related anymore. It's all slop.
We need to retvrn to rss feeds
by vatsachak - what would returning to rss feeds achieve?by exit
- Is there a study demonstrating that AI-assisted articles are less substantive or is it purely a kneejerk bias towards humanslop?by jimmaswell
- Compression in this modern day and age is so slop.
Yes, I'm familiar with keystone results such as Solomonoff induction. It's a direct counterexample to compression - your intensional algorithm can completely outrun reality. I can literally specify a huge mega-algorithm that just searches over all possible Turing machines and evaluates them, and it's an optimal compressor. It's completely vacuous though. You can always hide the "heavy work" in your mappings and descriptions. It's ironic that a kolomogorov complexity minimizer is so loaded that it's vacuous.
This is pretty much why I roll my eyes at this point at all the compression is intelligence memes.
I wonder when intervention and causality will hit the mainstream. These tools were designed specifically to counteract purely predictive theories. But your average compression dude will hold tight to their paradigms and slogans, not realize their internal contradictions (that their own field has brought up), and then whenever a new paradigm suddenly becomes visible and mainstream, they'll latch onto that. It's not principled at all.
And to be clear - I do think intelligence is some amount of compression, and I am well aware of formal results such as the arithmetic decoding theoretical and empricial result. Just annoyed. It's literally no different than the whole Bayesianism meme. If you're not actually practicing that type of intelligence as a basis, then you don't get to go around beating the drum about how it's the ultimate reality. You're just spouting dogma to feel like part of an in-group.
by sigbottle - I’m guessing your downvotes were for tone? You’re correct though regarding Solomonoff induction, as the choice of reference universal partial recursive function gives drastically different results for predictions based on finite data (even with access to a halting oracle). Asymptotically, any choice eventually converges to the same predictions, but that’s no help when there are infinitely many choices for U and no obvious natural prior over universal functions. And I don’t find the argument that our natural environment “implements some choice of U” particularly convincing. There’s definitely an open mystery there.by Xcelerate
- > I can literally specify a huge mega-algorithm that just searches over all possible Turing machines and evaluates them
Then why don't you ? and did you mean all or those that halt ? I presume you have a way of separating those.
by srean - I think that the ratio of work done by priors and search is the interesting question at this point. We aren't quite at the point where reading off the most likely hypothesis decompressed from a transformer is sufficient, but it's a lot closer than I originally suspected when we were ~solving chess. I think AlphaGo was kind of the watershed moment that prior-guided search was so much better than either alone.
I think the adversarial policies against Go AIs directly show the gap between intelligence and compression/priors.
by benlivengood - They tend not to overfit ... when there are way more data points than parameters.by nyeah
- Or when there are way more parameters than data pointsby wmedrano
- What fits (into few tokens) doesn't overfit.
- Do you know what the scaling law actually is? Overfit everything as much as you can.by llflw
- Wherein Claude gives an honest assessment that it genuinely does not overfit. I also had Grok telling me that it isn't quantized.
Do the submitters really not notice that this is AI slop? Do they like this? It is a complete pain to read.
by 32df179 - If anything, the latest generation of AI models, Astra and Fable, are prime example of overfitting—whereas benchmarks suggest they’re AGI-tier, users (including myself) report the same old gaslighting, hallucination, context rot, cheating, incomprehensibility patterns as with prior models, sometimes even more pronounced.
Fable and Opus 5, I suspect, will become textbook examples of RL collapse.
by ubutler - arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11045by dguest
- The methodology is partially based on https://www.offconvex.org/2021/04/07/ripvanwinkle/ , for those thinking this sounded familiar.by gwern
- Why is this being published as a blog post and not as a peer-reviewed submission? If it's going to be a blog post, why isn't there a corresponding scientific version for me to look at?
Someone else already found it. I don't understand why the link isn't in the blog post. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11045
Use of claude for writing it should be disclosed.
by jsrozner - > Why don't machine learning research agents overfit?
they do.
by signalbright - Even tech giants are putting out articles seemingly fully written by Claude.by demibabs
- Nobody wants to work anymore!by percentcer
- Time to first detected slop in this article is <1s. Claudisms per paragraph is also very high.
Is it too much to ask from people to read their own article anymore?
If anyone read this at all, they would have had the ick, and would have fired off a prompt to get rid of the most popular AI slop tells...
by serial_dev - The animated graphic labeled "Occam's razor, formalized" is bizarre. Is that really visualizing "Occam's razor, formalized"?by ks2048
- I always get annoyed when people misinterpret Occam’s razor. It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because it’s simple.
It’s just like the Hopper quote. She said it’s better to ask for forgiveness during the fog of war, doing something you thought was right, not to do something you knew they were going to say no to and now you are trying to get away with something.
by diddid - And sadly, in academia, complexity (opposite of Occam's razor) is what gets you published.by beckhamc
- Marcus Hutter formalized this in his AIXI work.by bnmik2
- That's not true. It's pretty clear that she meant "do something you knew they were going to say no to and now you are trying to get away with something."
https://youtu.be/wHdHCoeUbU4?t=861s
> So I want to tell something to all the young people here on many many occasions you'll find it is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission. You do it then when somebody comes after you and say are you supposed to do that, "oh gee I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that" ... so just remember it's frequently much easier to apologize than it is to get permission do it
She goes on further, explaining how to deceive your superiors to manipulate them to get what you want.
by gowld - simpler is not the right word either. it's the one that makes the least assumptions, not the simplest. The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime.by vrighter
- >It’s just like the Hopper quote.
Not sure about Hopper, as I recall biographers of Lawrence of Arabia certainly made it seem like he was using the fog of war to do things he knew his superiors may object to.
Regardless, even if its misinterpreted it still has a kernal of truth and separate utility than your version, that is: the people in the field closest to the action have an operational awareness that may result in better decisions in times of urgency.
by sillyfluke - “You should prefer it, because it’s simple” is just restating Occam’s razor, not giving any explanation. “The simplest is more likely to be accurate” is a much better interpretation than yours.
I think the most accessible example of Occam’s razor is fitting a line to some points; you can always use a high enough order polynomial to fit the seen points exactly, but a straight line is likely closer to representing the underlying distribution.
by arijun - I think you should get less annoyed.
> It’s not that the simplest is more likely to be correct, it’s that you should prefer it, because it’s simple.
I don't know what Occam meant, but if you accept the formalism of PAC learning, it is more likely to be correct
https://web.archive.org/web/20170428225156/http://www.cse.bu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20130412062821/http://cs.ecs.bay...
by srean