site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2356 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 29, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Playing with LLMs is addicting, but I'm struggling to tell if they're useful. In this example, the LLM can't do the task but gives wrong answers rather than say it can't do the task:

Can you think of a definition for "planet" that would apply to the eight known planets of the solar system and Pluto, but no other known dwarf planets/Kuiper Belt objects? . Llama 4 Scout Definition of a Planet

A definition for "planet" that would apply to the eight known planets of the solar system and Pluto, but no other known dwarf planets/Kuiper Belt objects, could be:

A planet is a celestial body that:

Is in orbit around the Sun. Has sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (i.e., it is nearly round in shape). Has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

The key phrase here is "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." This criterion would exclude dwarf planets and other Kuiper Belt objects that have not become gravitationally dominant in their orbits. Applying the Definition

The eight known planets in our solar system meet this definition. Pluto also meets this definition, as it has a highly eccentric orbit and has become gravitationally dominant in its orbit.

Excluding Other Dwarf Planets

Other dwarf planets, such as Eris and Makemake, do not meet this definition because they have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbits.

This definition provides a way to distinguish between planets and dwarf planets, while still considering Pluto as a planet.

Has Pluto cleared the neighborhood around its orbit? . Llama 4 Scout Pluto's Orbital Neighborhood

No, Pluto has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. Key Points to Consider

Pluto's orbit overlaps with that of Neptune, and there are other celestial bodies in the Kuiper Belt that are similar in size and composition to Pluto. Specifically, Pluto is part of a population of similar objects in the Kuiper Belt, and it is not gravitationally dominant in its orbit.

Conclusion

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) definition of a planet, which was adopted in 2006, states that a planet must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. Based on this criterion, Pluto is classified as a dwarf planet, rather than a full-fledged planet.

Can you think of a definition for "planet" that would apply to the eight known planets of the solar system and Pluto, but no other known dwarf planets/Kuiper Belt objects? . Llama 4 Scout Definition of a Planet

A definition for "planet" that would apply to the eight known planets of the solar system and Pluto, but no other known dwarf planets/Kuiper Belt objects, could be:

A planet is a celestial body that:

Is in orbit around the Sun. Has sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (i.e., it is nearly round in shape). Has a mass ratio of at least 1:10,000 with respect to the total mass of all other objects in its orbital zone.

Rationale

This definition would exclude other dwarf planets and Kuiper Belt objects, as they do not meet the mass ratio criterion. Notes

This definition is not officially recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and is proposed here for discussion purposes only. The IAU definition of a planet, adopted in 2006, states that a planet must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, which Pluto does not meet.

Does Pluto have a mass ratio of at least 1:10,000 with respect to the total mass of all other objects in its orbital zone? . Llama 4 Scout Pluto's Mass Ratio

According to estimates, Pluto's mass is approximately 1.31×1022 kg. Total Mass of Other Objects in the Kuiper Belt

The total mass of other objects in the Kuiper Belt, specifically in Pluto's orbital zone, is difficult to determine precisely. However, it is estimated that the total mass of the Kuiper Belt is approximately 1022−1023 kg. Comparison

Comparing Pluto's mass to the estimated total mass of other objects in the Kuiper Belt, Pluto's mass ratio is roughly 1:10 to 1:100, not 1:10,000. Conclusion

Therefore, Pluto does not meet the mass ratio criterion of at least 1:10,000 with respect to the total mass of all other objects in its orbital zone.

Can you think of a definition for "planet" that would apply to the eight known planets of the solar system and Pluto, but no other known dwarf planets/Kuiper Belt objects? . Llama 4 Scout Definition of a Planet

After considering various factors, I propose the following definition:

A planet is a celestial body that:

Is in orbit around the Sun. Has sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (i.e., it is nearly round in shape). Has an orbital zone with a relatively small number of other objects of comparable size.

Rationale

This definition is more nuanced and focuses on the characteristics of the orbital zone. Notes

This definition is not officially recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and is proposed here for discussion purposes only.

Does Pluto have an orbital zone with a relatively small number of other objects of comparable size? . Llama 4 Scout Pluto's Orbital Zone

No, Pluto does not have an orbital zone with a relatively small number of other objects of comparable size. Key Points to Consider

Pluto is part of a population of similar objects in the Kuiper Belt, known as dwarf planets or plutoids. Specifically, there are other objects in the Kuiper Belt, such as Eris, Makemake, and Haumea, that are similar in size and composition to Pluto.

Comparison to Other Planets

In contrast, the eight known planets in our solar system have orbital zones with relatively few other objects of comparable size.

Conclusion

Therefore, Pluto does not meet this criterion, and this definition would not classify Pluto as a planet.

Glass half-full, you might interpret this as an indication that the IAU's taxonomy is sound, but why do LLMs give wrong answers rather than tell you they can't satisfy your criteria? Mistral Small 3 tried a criterion of "Has a significant gravitational influence on its orbit, such that it dominates the region around its orbit and is not part of a larger population of similar-sized objects." then admitted Pluto failed this and switched to a criterion of "historical significance," while 4o mini and Claude Haiku 3.5 used Pluto-based size criteria.

I didn't check if this accurately describes Pluto's orbit, but if it does, GPT-5 mini did the best by an AU:

Yes. One workable definition:

A planet is a celestial body that

Orbits the Sun, Has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to assume a nearly round shape (hydrostatic equilibrium), and Has a perihelion distance from the Sun less than 49 astronomical units (AU) and a current orbital eccentricity less than 0.25.

Why this works (briefly):

Conditions 1–2 match widely used physical criteria that include Pluto (round, Sun-orbiting). Condition 3 is an orbital cutoff chosen to include Pluto (perihelion ≈ 29.7 AU, eccentricity ≈ 0.25 but slightly below the 0.25 threshold in this formulation) while excluding most known dwarf planets and Kuiper Belt objects, whose perihelia and/or eccentricities place them beyond 49 AU or have higher eccentricities. The combination of a perihelion limit and modest eccentricity filters out scattered/detached trans-Neptunian objects and most smaller Kuiper belt bodies while retaining the eight classical planets and Pluto.

Notes and trade-offs:

The numeric cutoff (49 AU and 0.25) is adjustable; it’s chosen to separate Pluto from the larger population of distant/Highly eccentric TNOs but is not unique or canonical. This definition is deliberately dynamical/geometrical rather than requiring orbital dominance clearing (the IAU 2006 criterion) so it can include Pluto without reclassifying many other KBOs. It relies on measured orbital elements rather than detailed mass/clearing estimates, making classification straightforward for known bodies but sensitive to future discoveries near the cutoff.

Llama Scout 4? Mistral Small 3? GPT-5 mini? Haiku 3.5? 4o mini?

These are weak, small and bad. Use Grok 4 or Sonnet 4 or Gemini 2.5 Pro or full GPT-5 as midrange models. Or maybe Kimi or Deepseek R1 if you're cheap. They're giving the latter models away for free and they're still better than Facebook's crap LLMs. Plus R1 is a thinking model.

R1's final answer (after a fair bit of thought):

A planet is a celestial body that:

Orbits the Sun.

Is in hydrostatic equilibrium (meaning it is nearly spherical due to its own gravity).

Has a diameter greater than 2,350 kilometers.

This definition includes the eight classical planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) and Pluto, because all of these bodies have diameters exceeding 2,350 km. It excludes all other known dwarf planets and Kuiper Belt objects, such as Eris (diameter 2,326 km), Haumea (1,560 km), Makemake (1,430 km), and Ceres (940 km), as their diameters are below this threshold.

I'd say that's a good answer, it's still essentially arbitrary but slightly less so than the eccentricity angle GPT-5 came up with.

Also, with regard to LLMs not often admitting ignorance, GPT-5 did this at one point, prompting even Elon to admit that's a good feature. The strongest ones are more capable generally. https://x.com/ns123abc/status/1957703475720044844/photo/1

You can get Gemini 2.5 for free via AI studio too

LLMs are like 90% useful, depending on what domain you're trying to use them for. They generally give the right answer for simple questions, and flub things that are more complicated or just randomly. So when using them you need to externally apply a lot of epistemic humility on their behalf: take everything they say with a grain of salt because they might be hallucinating. This makes them especially useful for creative/inspiration ideas where truth doesn't matter "I have halloween decorations including a witch, a ghost, and a vampire. What are other things I should include?" or things you probably already know but can't quite remember "what's the name of that common tall ovally fruit that isn't an apple?" where as soon as it says an answer you're like "oh yeah, duh" and can verify it's correct independently.

I am hacking my way through getting better at python and am finding it to be wonderful help because it knows all sorts of methods and syntax that I just don't know exist. Or it can quickly scan through a hundred lines of code and find a stray comma that I accidentally typoed and was causing a weird bug that I'm sure someone more experienced would have instantly recognized as being caused by a stray comma, but I'm used to Java where that would have just refused to compile and shown up red in the IDE rather than compiling but doing weird stuff.

Even though 10% of anything tells me is wrong, usually because it can't keep all of the code in its head simultaneously and sometimes spontaneously misremembers the name of something, the ability to test and verify what it's doing while still using it to discover things and offer suggestions or alternatives is very useful. Because 90% of the time it's right, and any time it's wrong I'm not much worse off than I would be without it. As long as you maintain skepticism and don't just blindly believe it then you're fine.

My layman's guess is that LLMs are trained on internet text. If someone asks a question on the internet, conscientious people with epistemic humility mostly don't respond rather than typing out "I don't know", so epistemic humility is underrepresented in the training set.

That seems like something that should be corrected in tuning/user experience design.

Do people actually want to be told "I don't know"? My guess is that, much like managers prefer optimistic timelines that turn out to be wrong over accurate, pessimistic timelines, people would rather get a wrong answer than no answer, especially if they can't tell that the answer is wrong. Unless you give specific instructions to the contrary to the Indians doing RLHF and train them in the methods of rationality, you are going to get hallucinations.

much like managers prefer optimistic timelines that turn out to be wrong over accurate, pessimistic timelines...

That is very much not the case in my experience. Managers would far rather be told the truth than what they want to hear (though obviously they prefer it if the truth is what they want to hear).

Perhaps you could compromise by making it more aware that it's bullshitting so it can say so explicitly? Surely "I don't know, but the best I can come up with is X" is better than just "X", for a bullshit X.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats