11–20 of 81 posts
If people used LLMs more we would have fewer instances of misinformation. Lots of comments in social media could easily be dispelled by a single LLM search.
LLMs can be injected with biases as well. Just look at Grok's responses any time it's tagged in anything mildly political.
Bias is useful and inevitable
I understand the author’s sentiment but I would like to give a counter example: I like to read philosophy and after I read a passage and think about it, I find it useful to copy the passage into a decent model and ask for its interpretation, or if it is something old ask about word choice or meaning. I realize that I may not be getting perfect information, but LLM output gives me ideas that are a combination of live…
I mean it can also depend on scale. I use hundreds of sub-agent instances to do analysis that I just would not be able to do in a reasonable timeframe. That is a TON of thinking done for me.
For some work, similar to the philosophy example of GP, LLMs can help with depth/quality. Is additive to your own thinking. -> quality approach
For other things. I take a quantity approach. Having 8 subagents research, implement, review, improve, review (etc) a feature in a non critical part of our code, or investigate a bug together with some traces. It’s displacing my own thinking, but that’s ok, it makes up for it with the speed and amount of work it can do. —> quantity approach.
It’s become mostly a matter of picking the right approach depending on the problem I’m trying to solve.
If people used LLMs more we would have fewer instances of misinformation. Lots of comments in social media could easily be dispelled by a single LLM search.
Or it could give out bad information and make everything worse because a subset of people seem to think LLMs are infallible or gods rather than aggregates of the knowledge they’ve consumed.
If people used LLMs more we would have fewer instances of misinformation. Lots of comments in social media could easily be dispelled by a single LLM search.
i.e. Russian networks flood the Internet with propaganda, aiming to corrupt AI chatbots.
https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/russian-networks-flood-the-i...
If people used LLMs more we would have fewer instances of misinformation. Lots of comments in social media could easily be dispelled by a single LLM search.
Or it could give out bad information and make everything worse because a subset of people seem to think LLMs are infallible or gods rather than aggregates of the knowledge they’ve consumed.
People already just blindly believe whatever is put in front of them by the algorithm gods. Even the "@Grok is this real" spam on every X post is an improvement.
Yawn. Just a post++ about white-horse attitudes regarding "muh expertise". And yet the top of the top experts in their fields (Terrence Tao, Karpathy, hell even Linus) are finding ways to make them useful for them . That's the crux imo. If you can't find a way to make these tools useful for you, you are the problem. Not the LLMs. THere's something there, even if currently not much, but there's something there for eve…
"If you can't find a way to make today's tech du jour useful for you, you are the problem". Hmmmmm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs can be injected with biases as well. Just look at Grok's responses any time it's tagged in anything mildly political.
That’s like saying journalism is not useful because journalists are biased. Bias is useful and inevitable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it could give out bad information and make everything worse because a subset of people seem to think LLMs are infallible or gods rather than aggregates of the knowledge they’ve consumed.
If you’ve used LLMs you’d know that they are way more correct than not.
If people used LLMs more we would have fewer instances of misinformation. Lots of comments in social media could easily be dispelled by a single LLM search.
Incorrect. i.e. Russian networks flood the Internet with propaganda, aiming to corrupt AI chatbots. https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/russian-networks-flood-the-i...
I understand the author’s sentiment but I would like to give a counter example: I like to read philosophy and after I read a passage and think about it, I find it useful to copy the passage into a decent model and ask for its interpretation, or if it is something old ask about word choice or meaning. I realize that I may not be getting perfect information, but LLM output gives me ideas that are a combination of live…
I don't mean to be judgemental. It's possible this is a personal observation, but I do wonder if it's not universal. I find that if I give an inch to these models thinking, I instantly become lazy. It doesn't really matter if they produce interesting output, but rather that I stop trying to produce interesting thoughts because I can't help wonder if the LLM wouldn't have output the same thing. I become TOO output focused. I mistake reading an interpretation for actually integrating knowledge into my own thinking, I disregard following along with the author.
I love reading philosophy as well. Dialectic of Enlightenment profoundy shaped how I view the world, but there was not a single part of that book that I could have given you a coherent interpretation of as a read it. The interpretations all come now, years after I read it. I can't help but wonder if those interpretations would have been different, had my subcouncious been satiated by cheap explanations from the lie robot.