I got a promotion for saying my thoughts and bringing receipts/studies. Turns out my promotion was so I could play devil’s advocate so the AI teams could make their processes and models’ messaging stronger against criticism. Anyone hiring?
so what if someone used a service you dont personally respect, to find sources for their inquiry? like genuinely why are you so personally upset by someone saying the phrase? did you used to hate wikipedia too?
What? This kind of person can literally be a danger to people around them if you look at the most upvoted comment under this post. Thats not some kind of preference issue. Its people putting their and other peoples lives into the hands of a bullshit generators. If i hear that someone makes important decisions based on LLM outputs i will disregard anything they say.
i think youre generalizing way too much here. disregarding everything someone says bc they source info in a manner below your standards is silly to me. should i disregard everything anyone says that watches legacy news media? cmon
Legacy news media is much more reliable at what it does than LLMs. You can almost always trace back the sources, its not a blackbox. Also news arent thought automating like LLMs. People directly ask LLMs what to do and then do exactly what it says. Thats not how it works with most news media, because they dont give you step by step instructions on how to do things, just what the facts are according to their sources. LLMs remove the last layer of critical thinking that people were barely still forced to have.
People use them for medical, psychological, dietary, technical, pet and childcare advice. All things that can seriously endanger them or others.
no i cannot almost always trace back sources of news media, where have you gotten that idea from?
also, if you want sources from an llm, just say “give me sources” if youre using a model that is so old that it doesnt automatically do that anyway.
“People directly ask LLMs what to do and then do exactly what it says” - people also chose not to do said things, or push back and converse. not everyone is a one promt npc.
News media often reports factually inaccurate or plain false information, i still interact with people that watch it.
An LLM fundamentally knows nothing about the world, only how to put together language in a statistically convincing manner. It makes no empirical observations about the world, only about how words connect to different words, which is definitionally not knowledge about anything other than language. It does not matter how powerful this technique becomes, it will always have this limitation.
The real use cases for LLM or machine learning are pattern recognition tasks that would be impractical for a person to manually do. If the task has a narrowly defined goal with predictable error rates that can be accounted for, you can parse impossible amounts of data without making any leaps in reasoning. All uncertainties are accounted for. Machine learning has been used this way in research for far longer than most people realize, and it has enabled analysis that would not have been possible otherwise.
Asking an LLM to give you factual information or even asking it to summarize sources is not a narrowly defined task with predictable inaccuracies. There is no real way to know the error rates of questions you ask an LLM, and even wording the question slightly differently can result in a different outcome. All you can do with an LLM is ask it for sources, using it as a supplement for a search engine(what I’ve always thought they should use the tech for), but the summaries it gives you are basically a waste of processing power.
The key to all of this is critical thinking, something LLM use actively atrophies. It has no consistent viewpoints and does not think like a person. It cannot gather information firsthand and can only confide with others for all its information about the world. It does not matter how good machine learning gets; at the end of the day it is either reliant on the information of others, or just spewing bullshit that sounds like what others would say. Just cut out the middle man and interface directly with people
Every major newspaper article or news show will always contain “according to” or “we asked” or another version of this. They generally dont lie outright, only by omission or by using questionable sources.
Either way you can try to argue all you want, the reality is that people are dying left and right because of LLM automation bias and its only gonna get worse. The job market (or what was left of it) has been completely destroyed by automated screening tools. Doctors and lawyers are getting caught outsourcing their thinking to them and misjudging at higher than before rates.
I wish i could tell these people my honest thoughts about their idiocy but that would cause… issues…
I got a promotion for saying my thoughts and bringing receipts/studies. Turns out my promotion was so I could play devil’s advocate so the AI teams could make their processes and models’ messaging stronger against criticism. Anyone hiring?
it’s ok, they won’t lash out at you on it, not at least until they ask chatGPT if they should be mad
so what if someone used a service you dont personally respect, to find sources for their inquiry? like genuinely why are you so personally upset by someone saying the phrase? did you used to hate wikipedia too?
What? This kind of person can literally be a danger to people around them if you look at the most upvoted comment under this post. Thats not some kind of preference issue. Its people putting their and other peoples lives into the hands of a bullshit generators. If i hear that someone makes important decisions based on LLM outputs i will disregard anything they say.
i think youre generalizing way too much here. disregarding everything someone says bc they source info in a manner below your standards is silly to me. should i disregard everything anyone says that watches legacy news media? cmon
Legacy news media is much more reliable at what it does than LLMs. You can almost always trace back the sources, its not a blackbox. Also news arent thought automating like LLMs. People directly ask LLMs what to do and then do exactly what it says. Thats not how it works with most news media, because they dont give you step by step instructions on how to do things, just what the facts are according to their sources. LLMs remove the last layer of critical thinking that people were barely still forced to have.
People use them for medical, psychological, dietary, technical, pet and childcare advice. All things that can seriously endanger them or others.
no i cannot almost always trace back sources of news media, where have you gotten that idea from?
also, if you want sources from an llm, just say “give me sources” if youre using a model that is so old that it doesnt automatically do that anyway.
“People directly ask LLMs what to do and then do exactly what it says” - people also chose not to do said things, or push back and converse. not everyone is a one promt npc.
News media often reports factually inaccurate or plain false information, i still interact with people that watch it.
An LLM fundamentally knows nothing about the world, only how to put together language in a statistically convincing manner. It makes no empirical observations about the world, only about how words connect to different words, which is definitionally not knowledge about anything other than language. It does not matter how powerful this technique becomes, it will always have this limitation.
The real use cases for LLM or machine learning are pattern recognition tasks that would be impractical for a person to manually do. If the task has a narrowly defined goal with predictable error rates that can be accounted for, you can parse impossible amounts of data without making any leaps in reasoning. All uncertainties are accounted for. Machine learning has been used this way in research for far longer than most people realize, and it has enabled analysis that would not have been possible otherwise.
Asking an LLM to give you factual information or even asking it to summarize sources is not a narrowly defined task with predictable inaccuracies. There is no real way to know the error rates of questions you ask an LLM, and even wording the question slightly differently can result in a different outcome. All you can do with an LLM is ask it for sources, using it as a supplement for a search engine(what I’ve always thought they should use the tech for), but the summaries it gives you are basically a waste of processing power.
The key to all of this is critical thinking, something LLM use actively atrophies. It has no consistent viewpoints and does not think like a person. It cannot gather information firsthand and can only confide with others for all its information about the world. It does not matter how good machine learning gets; at the end of the day it is either reliant on the information of others, or just spewing bullshit that sounds like what others would say. Just cut out the middle man and interface directly with people
Every major newspaper article or news show will always contain “according to” or “we asked” or another version of this. They generally dont lie outright, only by omission or by using questionable sources.
Either way you can try to argue all you want, the reality is that people are dying left and right because of LLM automation bias and its only gonna get worse. The job market (or what was left of it) has been completely destroyed by automated screening tools. Doctors and lawyers are getting caught outsourcing their thinking to them and misjudging at higher than before rates.
regarding your message, the key word is “generally”
llm provide a service within which users can generally get information at request, with sources and occasionally useful insight.
i think theres a level of equivalence here that supports my position.