121–130 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don’t give false information often.
Do you double check every fact or are you relying on yourself being an expert on the topics you ask an llm? If you are an expert on a topic you probably aren't asking ab llm anyhow. It reminds me of someone who reads a newspaper article about a topic they know and say its most incorrect but then reading the rest of the paper and accepting those articles as fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM give false information often. The ability for you to catch incorrect facts is limited by your knowledge and ability and desire to do independent research. LLMs are accurate with everything you don't know but are factually incorrect with things you are an expert in is a common comment for a reason.
No they don’t give false information often.
"do llms give wrong information often?"
"Yes. Large language models produce incorrect information at a non-trivial rate, and the rate is highly task-dependent."
But wait, it could be lying and they actually don't give false information often! But if that were the case, it would then verify they give false information at a non trivial rate because I don't ask it that much stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This happened in a year or two so I can't really blame. The truth machine where you doesn't needed to focus too much on validating answers changed rapidly to slop machine where ironically, your focus is much more important. Very much this for the general public. I view it as borderline* dangerous to anyone looking for confirmation bias.
Yea. Especially with absolutele garbage that is gooogle ai summary, which is just slightly worse than their "AI mode". I never saw anything hallucinate that much. It is much worse that it is included in every search and it have the google "stamp of quality" which was usually mark of well functioning product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do corporations use my google searches as data to hire me?
Not yet. But Google itself would ask you for your resume if you happened to search for a lot of things related to programming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not yet. But Google itself would ask you for your resume if you happened to search for a lot of things related to programming.
Yes, I remember a friend that interned there a couple times showed me that. One of them was “list comprehensive python” and the Google website would split in 2 and give you some really fun coding challenges. I did a few, and you get 4(?) right you get a guaranteed interview I think. I intended to come back and spend a lot of time on an additional one, but I never did. Oops
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would you know what they base their hiring upon? You would just get a generic automated response.. You would not be privy to their internal processes, and thusfar not be able to prove wrong doing. You would just have to hope for a new Snowden and that the found wrongdoings would actually be punished this time.
Do corporations use my google searches as data to hire me?
Also, in some cases: they absolutely do. Try to get hired in Palantir and see how much they know about your browsing history. Anything related to national security or requiring clearances has you investigated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like excellent evidentiary material for a future insurer or government health provider to decide you're uninsurable, not eligible for a job, and so on. And the great thing about it is that you already signed all your rights away for them to do this exact thing , when we could have had an open world with open models run locally instead where you got to keep your private health information private.
Can you explain the exact way in which this is possible? It’s not legal to be denied jobs based on health. Not to deny insurance
There is a vast gap between what is not legal and what is actually actionable in a court of law, which is well known to a large power nexus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, sometimes you end up like this guy. Are you feeling lucky? https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/08/after-using-chatgpt-m...
You could also list plenty of horror stories where people went to medical professionals and got screwed over. There is this myth that people can go to doctors and get perfect attention and treatment. Reality is far from that
If you are treated by a human being and it goes sideways, you could sue them and/or the hospital. Now, granted, you may not always win, it may take some time, but there is some chance.
If you are "treated" by an LLM and it goes sideways, good luck trying to sue OpenAI or whoever is running the model. It's not a coincidence that LLM providers are trying to put disclaimers and/or claims in their ToS that LLM advice is not necessarily good.
Same goes for privacy. Doctors and hospital are regulated in a way that you have a reasonable, often very strong, expectation of privacy. Consider doctor-patient confidentiality, for example. This doesn't mean that there is no leak, but you can hold someone accountable. If you send your medical data to ChatGPT and there is a leak, are you going to sue OpenAI?
The answer in both cases is, yes, you should probably be able to sue an LLM provider. But because LLM providers have a lot of money (way more than any hospital!), are usually global (jurisdiction could be challenging) and, often, they say themselves that LLM advice is not necessarily good (which doctors cannot say that easily), you may find that way more challenging than suing a doctor or a hospital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insurance that is maximally responsive to patient health changes in terms of cost (ie making healthier people pay less) ends up being an inefficient way of just having people pay for their healthcare directly. And it naturally means the people with highest premiums are the least likely to be able to afford it (the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic conditions that make them less likely to maintain high earning…
The obvious retort to this is: "If I focused on my health, ate clean and exercised daily, why should I also be subsidizing Billy "video-games-are-my-exercise" fatass's chronic health conditions?" This is why there is a hyperfixation on shifting blame away from (failing) individuals. The logic breaks when Billy has to admit he just hates exercising. And yes, before you comment, I know "maybe Billy has (condition outsi…
I don't think we should play arbiter for who has and hasn't lived a healthy enough life to still believe they should get healthcare?
Once again, glad to live in Europe.
If you lived in the US and you didn't like this product, you can just choose to not use it. What benefit do you as a citizen of Europe derive from having this withheld from you?