Reflection (artificial intelligence) is dreck of a high order. It cites one arXiv post after another, along with marketing materials directly from OpenAI and Google themselves... How do the people who write this shit dress themselves in the morning without pissing into their own socks?
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1682 readers
107 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
and of course, not a single citation for the intro paragraph, which has some real bangers like:
This process involves self-assessment and internal deliberation, aiming to enhance reasoning accuracy, minimize errors (like hallucinations), and increase interpretability. Reflection is a form of "test-time compute," where additional computational resources are used during inference.
because LLMs don’t do self-assessment or internal deliberation, nothing can stop these fucking things from hallucinating, and the only articles I can find for “test-time compute” are blog posts from all the usual suspects that read like ads and some arXiv post apparently too shitty to use as a citation
on the one hand, I want to try find which ~~vendor marketing material~~ "research paper" that paragraph was copied from, but on the other... after yesterday's adventures trying to get data out of PDFs and c.o.n.s.t.a.n.t.l.y getting "hey how about this LLM? it's so good![0]" search results, I'm fucking exhausted
[0]: also most of these are paired with pages of claims of competence and feature boasts, and then a quiet "psssst: also it's a service and you send us your private data and we'll do with it whatever we want" as hidden as they can manage
From topic and lack of citation I just assumed that they had an LLM write it.
my post: "Created: Monday, February 3rd, 2025 at 7:44:32 PM GMT+02:00"
wikipedia article: "11:58, 3 March 2025"
worst game of internet sweepstakes ever
More distressingly the vibe coding article seems to have been nominated and approved for the "Did you know" section with very little discussion: webarchive:wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Vibe_coding
None of my acquaintances who have Wikipedian insider experience have much familiarity with the "Did you know" box. It seems like a niche within a niche that operates without serious input from people who care about the rest of the project.
"In The News" is apparently also an editor clique with its own weird dynamics, but it doesn't elevate as many weird tiny articles to the Main Page because the topics there have to be, you know, in the news.
yeah, "Did you know" exists to encourage new articles, or major expansions of old ones. it cycles every six hours I think.
From how they're labeled, I think they cycle every day?
also lol @
Vibe coding, sometimes spelled vibecoding
cause I love the kayfabe linguistic drift for a term that’s not even a month old that’s probably seen more use in posts making fun of the original tweet than any of the shit the Wikipedia article says
Promptfondler (from Old French prompette-fondeleur)
did you know: you too can make your dreams come true with Vibe Coding (tm) thanks to this article’s sponsors:
Replit Agent, Cursor Composer, Pythagora, Bolt, Lovable, and Cline
and other shameful assholes with cash to burn trying to astroturf a term from a month old Twitter brainfart into relevance
"Vibe coding? Back in my day, we called it teledildonics."
this would explain so much about the self-declared 10x programmers I’ve met
10x programmers used to be a real thing but they got obsoleted by TOPS-20.