161–170 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree that the study design is flawed. Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% (or whatever % you get after factoring in the monetary rewards they introduced later in the study) But in reality when google gives you the wrong answer, you at least have some signals you can use to infer confidence. For example, the number of results, whether the so…
> Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% I hadn't even considered people might evaluate knowledge that way. That's legit horrific lol. "What's the literal odds this info is wrong" vs "is this answer consistent with everything else I know, and if not, what other info would I need to change my mind"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was nothing uncivil in the response the above commenter gave.
I suppose that "civil" is relative. Personaly, I wouldn't speak to someone who just tried to help me that way. Instead I would restate the question to avoid bad answers. If you start by saying what you've already tried, and how it worked, it cuts off most of those "lazy answers." In my experience most lazy answers are provided as response to lazy questions.
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.
Here is what the study says: "The LLM used in our experiments (Step 3.5 Flash) answered such questions incorrectly almost without exception. We also checked some state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-5.5, Claude 4.6 Sonnet, Gemini 3.5 Flash); they all failed on the hardest question (Monica’s vehicle), while being frequently correct on the other questions." So, if people's experience is with modern LLMs, they are being rational…
They are not.
But also wtf is a “modern” LLM? This is totally unhinged, every complaint about an LLM is always responded to with “you’re just using one from two months ago, it’s totally different now”. Repeat every two months for the same complaints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People do use textbooks like that all the time in the experimental setup tested (essentially an open book quiz). What open book quizzes allow you to leave all answers blank with no penalty? An open book quiz is very different from the experimental setup tested here.
That difference is not essential to the question at hand. An open book test based on an erroneous book would give the same results as this test, even if it wouldn't penalize blank answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was nothing uncivil in the response the above commenter gave.
I suppose that "civil" is relative. Personaly, I wouldn't speak to someone who just tried to help me that way. Instead I would restate the question to avoid bad answers. If you start by saying what you've already tried, and how it worked, it cuts off most of those "lazy answers." In my experience most lazy answers are provided as response to lazy questions.
AI pessimist view. Even if AI gets smarter it will still be agreeable, and people will use it to more confidently reinforce thier stupider ideas, especially in areas where they lack the knowledge to know if they are right. Even if this can be solved, technically, people won't want to use the model that says they are wrong, so they will choose the glib lies that reinforce their beliefs. Freedown of speech forces peopl…
Im not mad about this. As someone who rarely uses LLMs because I dont need to, nor does it benefit me - I work on stuff that is original for which LLMs are useless at - Im glad. I want everyone around me to get dumb as hell. It makes my path in life much easier and more successful.
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. they get very mad and ive had some even use ai to tell me why that's wrong. what differentiates you? you could tell me "type xyz into chatgpt" or even share a structured document link from their site. but when you're copy/pasting, then you're basically useless in the equation.
The biggest problem with that saying is that it's completely ironic. "If you couldn't be bothered to think for yourself, don't bother speaking to me" is what people wish it meant, but what it signals to people outside of the haters club is "if you don't copy from the sources I like, don't communicate with me."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is what the study says: "The LLM used in our experiments (Step 3.5 Flash) answered such questions incorrectly almost without exception. We also checked some state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-5.5, Claude 4.6 Sonnet, Gemini 3.5 Flash); they all failed on the hardest question (Monica’s vehicle), while being frequently correct on the other questions." So, if people's experience is with modern LLMs, they are being rational…
> So, if people's experience is with modern LLMs, they are being rational to accept that the answers as likely correct. They are not. But also wtf is a “modern” LLM? This is totally unhinged, every complaint about an LLM is always responded to with “you’re just using one from two months ago, it’s totally different now”. Repeat every two months for the same complaints.
I understand that many of us are dealing with a lot of confident slop and support the point that we shouldn't uncritically accept LLM output. But the study is flawed and does not support this headline, or at least does not support it in the sense of how most of us would understand the term "AI advice".