Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#151

Post by benterix »

scoofy wrote: post #148

I think the real problem is most people don't actually have a very good understanding of "Truth." As someone who ended up studying philosophy, there seems to be a real gulf between folks who sort of believe stuff they hear, folks who believe "facts" that they hear from (various levels of) credible sources, and folks that take solipsism seriously understand that even in the most ideal scenario, we still wouldn't have…

Man, I had a partner who studied philosophy, too. I'd ask a simple question and they'd answer, "Wait, before we even start, we need to define the axioms".

It was fun and interesting but eventually non practical, because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#152

Post by tasuki »

Shitty-kitty wrote: post #147

My method is simple. I remind them that chatgpt is trained on everything said on the internet including NYT if speaking to a Republican, replace that with Fox News if speaking to a Democrat.

I like a lot of the other answers, but this is clearly the most pragmatic one.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#153

Post by scoofy »

benterix wrote: post #151
scoofy wrote: post #148

I think the real problem is most people don't actually have a very good understanding of "Truth." As someone who ended up studying philosophy, there seems to be a real gulf between folks who sort of believe stuff they hear, folks who believe "facts" that they hear from (various levels of) credible sources, and folks that take solipsism seriously understand that even in the most ideal scenario, we still wouldn't have…

Man, I had a partner who studied philosophy, too. I'd ask a simple question and they'd answer, "Wait, before we even start, we need to define the axioms". It was fun and interesting but eventually non practical, because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on.

>because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on.

I mean, I completely agree with you. You can understand Karl Popper without being exhausting. Understanding the scope and resolution of the information people are discussing is indeed important. Even when I'm getting really technical, I can get away with throwing in a "probably" here and there and spare the person I'm talking to.

At the same time, folks who try to talk about empirical facts with deductive certainty can be extremely difficult to engage with seriously. That type of knowledge is always just a series of escalating assumptions, and if that premise is not shared, it can be difficult to have a productive conversation.

Not understanding the difference between and empirical framework and a deductive framework becomes readily apparent when the discussion of Wikipedia comes up. That distinction -- the problem of empiricism -- is effectively at the heart of why "trusting LLMs" is infuriating to people. Humans seem to have an innate conception of a chain of trust that connects us from "folks who know the facts" to us receiving that truth. When in reality, the scientists who wrote those papers are usually just "pretty sure" that their publications are actually correct.

I'm not trying to make an excuse for trusting LLMs. That's asinine. I'm just saying that the concern with LLMs generally indicates a misunderstanding of what knowledge is, more generally.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#154

Post by menaerus »

Kavelach wrote: post #150
lovelearning wrote: post #125

> a reputable source News reporters and editors have their biases. Book authors have their biases. Scientists and research papers have their biases. Search engines have their biases. Google too. All human-created systems have biases shaped by the environments, social norms, education, traditions, etc. of their creators and managers. So, the concepts of "objective truth" and "reputable" need to be analyzed more critic…

This is an insightful comment, but I feel like you omit the fact that LLMs often give out verifiably false information that can hurt the user or other people. It is true that this also happens on the Internet, but! When I encounter an article about a topic and it is clearly LLM generated, I can expect it doesn't contain much valuable information, only rehashes of what is already out there. On the other hand, when it…

It's wrong to assume incompetence, which is what you did to a comment which displays much deeper chain of thought about the subject. A more proper way of doing it would be to reflect over your own opinions and critically assess them, as the comment points that out. To be more specific, what makes you think that the person you're replying to is not aware that LLMs can give false information, and is not taking that into account?

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#155

Post by Jamesbeam »

I deal with AIdiots just like my ancestors did with any kind of delusional idiot in history they encountered.

I laugh in their face, let them know how ridiculous they are, and then walk away laughing in tears, never talking to them again.

A wise man's life is based around “fuck you”.

Somebody wants me to do something because of or listen to his AI psychosis bullshit, “fuck you”.

Boss has AI psychosis, “fuck you!”.

You are the King of the US? You have a navy? Greatest army in the history of mankind?

Fuck you! Blow me.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#156

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

lovelearning wrote: post #125

> a reputable source News reporters and editors have their biases. Book authors have their biases. Scientists and research papers have their biases. Search engines have their biases. Google too. All human-created systems have biases shaped by the environments, social norms, education, traditions, etc. of their creators and managers. So, the concepts of "objective truth" and "reputable" need to be analyzed more critic…

Whilst chasing after "objective truth" is a philosophical problem, it's clear that some statements are more correct and true than others.

News articles are often biased, but most of the time, the bias is from the choice of what is reported and choosing specific language to push an interpretation (e.g. reporting road traffic collisions as "accidents" to downplay them or depersonalise them by stating "car hit tree" rather than "car driven into tree"). The problem with some LLM outputs is that it's not just bias, but clearly incorrect such as recommending putting glue onto pizzas.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#159

Post by Yizahi »

lovelearning wrote: post #125

> a reputable source News reporters and editors have their biases. Book authors have their biases. Scientists and research papers have their biases. Search engines have their biases. Google too. All human-created systems have biases shaped by the environments, social norms, education, traditions, etc. of their creators and managers. So, the concepts of "objective truth" and "reputable" need to be analyzed more critic…

Ironically, this is the classic bias of "bothsiding" the issue. When one side is clearly wrong, just sprinkle in some "look, the others are doing something bad, which means they are equally wrong". A basic lesson from the propaganda manual.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with people who trust LLMs?

#160

Post by OneMorePerson »

These aren't a new type of person. It's the people who would hear something from a friend, not fact check, and just repeat it. It's the people who (if they know how to google) would search, find the first result, and trust that, or they would write biased queries to google and then trust the first niche site that would agree with their pre-formed worldview.

Using or not using a LLM is not itself a measure of how deluded someone is, for example anytime I ask a LLM a question (it can be nice for long form questions that don't translate well to a google search, I require that it provides source links for every claim. This tends to make it reply more accurately but also lets me read the page source for their top level explanation.

Post reply on HN