stetrain (u/stetrain)

stetrain commented on Being “Confidently Wrong” is holding AI back promptql.io/blog/being-co... · Posted by u/tango12

nyeah · 4 days ago

Yes, that is the point of the comment.

stetrain · 4 days ago

Yes, you’re absolutely right! Agreeing with the comment and adding my own experience was the point of my comment.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

stetrain commented on Being “Confidently Wrong” is holding AI back promptql.io/blog/being-co... · Posted by u/tango12

traceroute66 · 4 days ago

> is their willingness to correct themselves when asked

Except they don't correct themselves when asked.

I'm sure we've all been there, many, many, many,many,many times ....

   - User: "This is wrong because X"
   - AI: "You're absolutely right !  Here's a production-ready fixed answer"
   - User: "No, that's wrong because Y"
   - AI: "I apologise for frustrating you ! Here's a robust answer that works"
   - User: "You idiot, you just put X back in there"
   - and so continues the vicious circle....

stetrain · 4 days ago

Yep, the LLM will happily continue this spiral indefinitely but I've learned that if providing a bit more context and one correction doesn't provide a good solution, continuing is generally a waste of time.

They tend to very quickly lose useful context of the original problem and stated goals.

stetrain commented on Being “Confidently Wrong” is holding AI back promptql.io/blog/being-co... · Posted by u/tango12

lucideer · 4 days ago

While the thrust of this article is generally correct, I have two issues with it:

1. The words "the only thing" massively underplays the difficulty of this problem. It's not a small thing.

2. One of the issues I've seen with a lot of chat LLMs is their willingness to correct themselves when asked - this might seem, on the surface, to be a positive (allowing a user to steer the AI toward a more accurate or appropriate solution), but in reality it simply plays into users' biases & makes it more likely that the user will accept & approve of incorrect responses from the AI. Often, rather than "correcting" itself it merely "teaches" the AI how to be confidently wrong in an amenable & subtle manner which the individual user finds easy to accept (or more difficult to spot).

If anything, unless/until we can solve the (insurmountable) problem of AI being wrong, AI should at least be trained to be confidently & stubbornly wrong (or right). This would also likely lead to better consistency in testing.

stetrain · 4 days ago

Yes, the quick to correct itself isn't really useful. I would not like a human assistant/intern/pair programmer who when asked how to do X said:

> To accomplish X you can just use Y!

But Y isn't applicable in this scenario.

> Oh, you're absolutely right! Instead of Y you can do Z.

Are you sure? I don't think Z accomplishes X.

> On second thought you're absolutely correct. Y or Z will clearly not accomplish X, but let's try Q....

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

taeric · 5 days ago

I could just be wrong. Nor am I aiming for exaggerated effect, though. I legit have grown to feel that people will get a car if they can afford it. Pretty much everywhere. As I said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.

This is related with the housing discussions. People have somewhat convinced themselves that cheap standalone houses are the goal. Which, I suppose there is no reason that can't be the goal. But compare average home size in pretty much any US city with some of these walkable cities you have in mind.

When I do that, I start asking how related those two things are. And I'm growing rather convinced that people have built up a mental idea that they can live with all of the benefits of both worlds, without contending with the contrast between them.

stetrain · 5 days ago

Yes, my point is just that the financial feasibility is related to the policy decisions.

For example you could say that most people who live in Manhattan would choose to live in a 2000sqft+ detached home if it was financially feasible to do so.

But because there is limited space, high demand, and city policy allows high density, such a home is not financially feasible for almost anyone in Manhattan.

And of course that applies in sprawling metro areas like Houston as well. Forcing large swaths of single-family zoning despite the market forces means that housing supply can’t grow with demand, so cost of housing increases.

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

taeric · 5 days ago

So on this we are in complete agreement. My criticism is when people show walkable cities, they need to underline that majority of those people will own a car if they can financially make it happen. Almost bar none.

stetrain · 5 days ago

I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration.

Yes the financial component is part of it. Building dense walkable urban developments makes car ownership more expensive and non-car options cheaper and more convenient.

Some would argue that in many places car ownership is being subsidized by the way we develop and tax.

Some households will still have cars, but households are not the same as individual people.

And I think there are plenty of places where the majority of households don’t own cars. You can say they would if it was cheap and convenient enough, but that’s the whole point we’re discussing. Not dedicating so much development and infrastructure to cars will make them less convenient and more expensive options than the alternatives for at least some of the population.

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

taeric · 5 days ago

My point is that, even in the cities that you are referencing, the more affluent people almost always have a car. Because they can afford it, and because it is more convenient.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. Essentially, my assertion is that you get more people out of cars by making them expensive than you do with city design. (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

stetrain · 5 days ago

> (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning.

And you can still significantly reduce the number of cars and car-trips without eliminating car ownership. A household with one car used occasionally when it’s convenient needs less parking and driving space than one with two cars driven daily.

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

taeric · 5 days ago

The campus I lived on had a transit stop not far off. I'm sure more people used it than my little anecdote made it sound.

I agree that places should be made as convenient as they can be for walking, as well. I just get annoyed with so much of the discourse assuming you can design the cities so that a car is not more convenient. It is almost always a massive convenience. Obnoxiously so.

stetrain · 5 days ago

But those cities do exist. Just mostly not in the US.

They also don’t need to make non-car options more convenient for all people, or even most people. The larger the share of non-car trips the better things get even for those who still drive, even if that share is going from 10% to 20%. Less congestion and pollution. Fewer traffic accidents. More density of housing in places that have high demand, reducing housing costs.

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

rickydroll · 5 days ago

Urban, suburban, and rural spaces all have different pluses and minuses. People have different needs for living spaces throughout their lives, and I feel it's important to recognize and acknowledge that and support them in finding the right place to live.

To me, the fundamental reason behind suburban failure is the lack of affordable housing in the city, forcing city mice to move out to suburbia, bringing their city mice habits and expectations with them. Build more housing in cities, and suburban problems will work themselves out.

stetrain · 5 days ago

Yes. Letting cities be actually dense would make suburbs work better.

But we tend to resist upzoning existing low-density development that is now in the density gravity well of the expanding city, keeping housing prices artificially inflated.

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

xnx · 5 days ago

I like my city a lot, but "urbanists" really need to update their priors and examine what they're advocating for. Ride share, electric micromobility, and (soon) self-driving cars totally change the equation for transportation.

Chicago is about to spend $440 million(!) to update a single train stop for a system that is carrying 25% less riders than before the pandemic.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/08/20/state-and-lake-cta-s...

stetrain · 5 days ago

Self-driving cars don’t really do much to increase density of moving people or decrease infrastructure costs per-passenger-mile.

Some parking needs may be reduced, but you still need somewhere for the cars to hang out while waiting for each morning and afternoon directional commuter rush.

You still need the same number of freeways with ever expanding lanes.

They mostly decrease the monetary, time, and mental cost of taking a car to work as an individual choice, which will increase the load on roads and freeways.

How many passengers per hour does that train line move, versus the costs to build and maintain an equivalent capacity freeway with one person in each car?

stetrain commented on In Defense of Car-Centered Society sweatofthebrow.blogspot.c... · Posted by u/whall6

AIorNot · 5 days ago

Sure choice of needing space, walking sure these are subjective, but for many many people the choice to where to live in not determinable. America is such a selfish society in regards to this when it comes to local democracy. (ie NIMBY, car focused, no care given to future population densities)

I spent 20 years of my life in Houston and saw first hand how horrible it is for non drivers and poor people to get around, lose their livelihood when losing car access etc -ie the working poor

Any major city must support the needs of its poorest majority as much as possible, and a city the size of Houston must have a better transportation and social spaces -it is absolutely horrible.

now if you want space and move to places that only work with cars sure, but our cities are suffering the lack of support for walkability and public transport. Anyone who has spent time in European cities where these spaces and public transportation options exist by necessity can see the value

stetrain · 5 days ago

Yes, I think a lot of people miss that the issue is that we have forced a reduction in variety, options, and market choices by dictating single-family detached zoning in huge swaths of the country, even in congested metro areas.

The people asking for some amount of consideration to non-car transit options, density, and housing affordability aren’t generally suggesting that this be forced on everyone, but that it at least not be artificially suppressed. That options and variety be allowed and that people have a choice to live in such areas if they want to or if it is what fits their means.

If you set such a low density ceiling in a giant metro area in the face of market forces that want density, you also raise the floor of the cost of living in that area to be being able to afford a single-family detached home and buying, maintaining, and insuring one car per working household member.

That increases the cost of living for people working in restaurants, shops, warehouses, and other service industry jobs, making your goods and services more expensive.