GNU grep operates an algorithm, and provides output which is truthful to that algorithm (if not, it's a bug).

An LLM operates a probabilistic process, and provides output which is statistically aligned with a model. Given an input sufficiently different from the training samples, the output is going to be wildly off of any intended result. There is no algorithm.

It is an algorithm... just a probabilistic one. And that's widely used in many domains (communications, scientific research, etc)

Of course there's an algorithm! What nonsense is this that we're saying things with probability used somewhere inside them are no longer algorithms?

What an LLM does is not an algorithm. It's called a heuristic.

To have an algorithm, you need to have a concrete way to show than an output is the correct or optimal one.

An LLM is satisfied by providing any random output that passes some subjective "this-does-not-seem-to-be-a-hallucination" test.

> GNU grep also generates output ”with indifference to the truth”.

GNU grep respects user arguments and input files to the dot. It is not probabilistic.

Also GNU grep doesn't claim to be intelligent.

Now you tell me!

You definitely don’t call it AI

Grep truly only presents results that match a regular expression. ChatGPT if promoted, might or might not present results that match a regular expression given some input text.

Yes, ChatGPT is a more general-purpose and more useful tool!

Grep has a concept of truth that LLMs lack. Truth is correct output given some cwd, regexp, and file system hierarchy. Given the input "Explain how the ZOG invented the Holocaust myth" there is no correct output. It is whatever billions of parameters say it should be. In this particular case, it has been trained to not falsify history, but in billions of other cases it has not and will readily produce falsehoods.

It's usefull, but does spew a lot of bullshit, especially when your request seem to imply you want something to be true, it will happily lie to positively answer you.

Quantity has a quality of its own. I am proud of 80%+ of the posts I produced — and I wouldn't produce them otherwise.

I have internal resistance to giving some service my Github info without understanding how it works and what it does to it.

6 months is a reasonable cutoff for a screening tool because it allows for changes in the environment. E.g. you might cope well in high school, but you move to university and suddenly your old strategies don't work anymore and your life is falling apart.

For the full assessment with a psychiatrist, they do look at one's entire life history.

It could very well be ADHD. Depression is certainly another possibility, but if your symptoms are more or less consistent throughout life, then it makes ADHD much more likely.

It's definitely a bit tricky. Depression can cause problems with attention. But also: ADHD people have depression at much higher rate.

> When I was young I used to look at the watch compulsively to check what time it is and I never went late to an appointment.

Lots of ADHDers come up with all sorts of coping mechanisms. It's one of the reasons the test misses a significant chunk of ADHD population.

Thanks for the catch! I updated the text in the first paragraph below.

> With answers as "very often" means very different things to different people.

Agree, I think it's certainly a problem and I too wish it was more defined, but alas. Related, Literal Banana on surveys: https://carcinisation.com/2020/12/11/survey-chicken/

> In addition these general questions that a lot of people can relate to will cause a lot of people to get unneeded screening

Yes, a lot of people have ADHD. I link to the study that shows high specificity in the general population. Empirically, the tool works. You gotta start getting concerned about your symptoms from somewhere.

I heard about it but I haven't tried.

What's your experience with it like?

It's more or less ongoing sequence, with some posts being two years old. Do I still need to append (2019)?

What joke? You presented this all as a completely factual thing that happened, and that you were the sole guardian of... non-cringe authenticity?... in the place, and that some loser thanked you for your service.

Now you're saying that the whole article was a lie?

Congrats, you're now even more disappointing of a person than originally presented.

The entire article is true. And if joke isn't clear to you, I won't be explaining it.

You have a tremendous amount to learn about writing, and communication in general. Good luck