151–160 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ask that, you fundamentally misunderstand the point. It's not about the LLM, it's about whether people will critically evaluate what it spits out.
If the source is a person instead of an LLM, you still wouldn't be able to evaluate what was said. This is nothing new.
This could serve as a beacon for those who still care: Richard Feynman: "I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
just a psa for others: there is at least one, likely multiple youtube accounts that are making AI generated Feynman slop. Don't trust anything posted prior to the current dishearenting era.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> responding "if you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" really sets people off That’s crazy, it seems like such an obviously fair policy to me. They rarely even read their own generated text. I don’t understand this mentality
Another human being took time from their life to try and help you It wasn't as much time as you felt entitled to from them, so you responded by minimizing their contribution and being condescending. That upset them. The problem here was not the other person.
No, I asked them to help and they offloaded it without applying any of the expertise I specifically asked for. If they don’t want to give their opinion or their expertise they should say “no.” It’s a valid response! If I’m asking for you to give your time and you don’t have time to give, that’s fine! But don’t just throw my question into an LLM and then paste the results to me. I too have access to LLM’s. I didn’t ask for a middleman.
It’s the same reason I never like it when people on hobby/interest forums tell people “Google it.” No dude, we all gathered here to discuss this topic. If people are going to ask basic questions, that’s part of the gig. They are asking the community. Perhaps they got bad results via search. People need to get over themselves lmao I don’t know what else to say.
We’ve just got this wild culture where everyone puts such a premium on their own time but now doesn’t value anyone else’s, as evidenced by all the slop dumping. By all means use LLM’s. They’re a tool, they’re there to be used. But use your own brain too. Give the results your attention. Don’t just dump them on me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah as if someone wouldn't have done that if they wanted to. Some people still think AI is some novelty people don't know about.
This did happen before, and still does to some extent, with people googling and giving the answer. "Let me Google that for you" lmgtfy.com was even a thing, again lacking any introspection about why someone might be asking instead of googling.
Though I feel that especially in the latest decade Google was a terrible source for finding things like the best product for usecase xyz and other recommendations. Because not only was the internet full of SEO clickbait fake comparison sites, but Google promoted the fake ones because they paid for it. They deeply undermined their own credibility. It was pretty much impossible to find real info with all the fake clickbait stuff around. Not to mention that even legit news outlets do a lot of paid "advertorials" these days.
I'm sure this will happen with AI too but with stuff like deep research I feel like I get better answers than Google has given me for years. Despite hallucination.
This study is pretty bad. The comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48970182 ) on the other link with the direct PDF explains the problem well, which is that nothing here being tested is specific to AI systems. This study gave people access to an LLM that the researchers knew would give incorrect answers to certain questions, and then quizzed people on those questions, with the option to not respond to a giv…
This study is pretty bad. The comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48970182 ) on the other link with the direct PDF explains the problem well, which is that nothing here being tested is specific to AI systems. This study gave people access to an LLM that the researchers knew would give incorrect answers to certain questions, and then quizzed people on those questions, with the option to not respond to a giv…
The fear is that we can’t tell when the ai advice is bad on these subjects, and as such probably accept confidently terrible advice. How often do managers just regurgitate ai advice rather than consulting their experts? How often does a person question an expert because the ai said so? Naturally, the ai will be right some of the time - but it’s really hard to correct for the times the ai is wrong.
We know people are going to defer. The solution here is to make AI (including the free tiers) more reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the headline says "AI advice made people three times less accurate". But if we really want to know how accurate these people were, we need to know how accurate the AI system they use is. If the AI system is hobbled to a point where it is worse than they reasonably expect we can't blame the people or the AI system. This would be the same as claiming the listening to experts make people less accurate in a study…
If you ask that, you fundamentally misunderstand the point. It's not about the LLM, it's about whether people will critically evaluate what it spits out.
Its about whether people will critically evaluate any information they are given. It has nothing to do with LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the headline says "AI advice made people three times less accurate". But if we really want to know how accurate these people were, we need to know how accurate the AI system they use is. If the AI system is hobbled to a point where it is worse than they reasonably expect we can't blame the people or the AI system. This would be the same as claiming the listening to experts make people less accurate in a study…
Exactly, it’s unrepresentative of AI. It’s damaged AI.
This study is pretty bad. The comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48970182 ) on the other link with the direct PDF explains the problem well, which is that nothing here being tested is specific to AI systems. This study gave people access to an LLM that the researchers knew would give incorrect answers to certain questions, and then quizzed people on those questions, with the option to not respond to a giv…
The point is that LLMs aren’t right, and the people who took the test were probably reminded of that.
Would people have trusted the textbook you’re mentioning if there was a big red warning on each page that said “this book may contain errors”.
The willingness to trust AI even though it may be wrong and even though there’s money on the line is intersting enough as a study imo