I already use LLMs to problem solve issues that I’m having and they’re typically better than me punching questions into Google. I admit that I’ve once had an llm hallucinate while it was trying to solve a problem for me, but the vast majority of the time it has been quite helpful. That’s been my experience at least. YMMV.
If you think LLMs suck, I’m guessing you haven’t actually used telephone tech support in the past 10 years. That’s a version of hell I wish on very few people.
If you think LLMs suck, I’m guessing you haven’t actually used telephone tech support in the past 10 years. That’s a version of hell I wish on very few people.
I’m specifically claiming that they’re bullshit machines. i.e. they’re generating synthetic text without context or understanding. My experience with search engines and telephone support is way better than what any LLM fed me.
There have already been cases where phone operators where replaced with LLMs which gave dangerops advice to anorexig patients.
I understand their limitations, but you’re overselling the negative. They’re fucking awesome for what they can do, but they have drawbacks that you must be aware of. Just as it’s lame to be an AI fanboi, it’s equally lame to be an AI luddite.
It’s funny tou bring up luddites, since they actually had the right idea about technology like LLMs. They were highly skilled textile workers who opposed the introducyion of dangerous medhanical looms that produced low quality goos, but were so easy to use so that a child could work them (because they wanted to employ children). They only got their bad name of backward anti-technology lunatics afterwards. But they were actually concerned for low quality technology being deployed to weaken worker’s rights, cheapen products and make bosses even richer. That’s actually the main issue I have with what’s happening with AI.
There’s a book by Brian Merchant called “Blood in the machine” on the topic, if you’re interested. He’s also on a bunch of podcasts, if you’re not the big reader.
I’m referring to “bullshit” in the way argued in this paper:
Applications of these systems have been plagued by persistent inaccuracies in their output; these are often called “AI hallucinations”. We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005): the models are in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs.
The technology is neat. I’ll give you that. But it’s incredibly overhyped.
If all you want is something trivial that’s been done by enough people beforehand, it’s no surprise that something approaching correct gets parroted back at you.
That’s 99% of what I’m looking for. If I’m figuring something out by myself, I’m not looking it up on the internet.
I’m an engineer and I’ve found LLMs great for helping me understand an issue. When you read something online, you have to translate from what the author is saying into your thinking and I’ve found LLMs are much better at re-framing information to match my inner dialog. I often find them much more useful than google searches in trying to find information.
I already use LLMs to problem solve issues that I’m having and they’re typically better than me punching questions into Google. I admit that I’ve once had an llm hallucinate while it was trying to solve a problem for me, but the vast majority of the time it has been quite helpful. That’s been my experience at least. YMMV.
If you think LLMs suck, I’m guessing you haven’t actually used telephone tech support in the past 10 years. That’s a version of hell I wish on very few people.
I’m specifically claiming that they’re bullshit machines. i.e. they’re generating synthetic text without context or understanding. My experience with search engines and telephone support is way better than what any LLM fed me.
There have already been cases where phone operators where replaced with LLMs which gave dangerops advice to anorexig patients.
I understand their limitations, but you’re overselling the negative. They’re fucking awesome for what they can do, but they have drawbacks that you must be aware of. Just as it’s lame to be an AI fanboi, it’s equally lame to be an AI luddite.
It’s funny tou bring up luddites, since they actually had the right idea about technology like LLMs. They were highly skilled textile workers who opposed the introducyion of dangerous medhanical looms that produced low quality goos, but were so easy to use so that a child could work them (because they wanted to employ children). They only got their bad name of backward anti-technology lunatics afterwards. But they were actually concerned for low quality technology being deployed to weaken worker’s rights, cheapen products and make bosses even richer. That’s actually the main issue I have with what’s happening with AI.
There’s a book by Brian Merchant called “Blood in the machine” on the topic, if you’re interested. He’s also on a bunch of podcasts, if you’re not the big reader.
I’m referring to “bullshit” in the way argued in this paper:
The technology is neat. I’ll give you that. But it’s incredibly overhyped.
If all you want is something trivial that’s been done by enough people beforehand, it’s no surprise that something approaching correct gets parroted back at you.
That’s 99% of what I’m looking for. If I’m figuring something out by myself, I’m not looking it up on the internet.
I’m an engineer and I’ve found LLMs great for helping me understand an issue. When you read something online, you have to translate from what the author is saying into your thinking and I’ve found LLMs are much better at re-framing information to match my inner dialog. I often find them much more useful than google searches in trying to find information.