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

AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 234 posts

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#221

Post by sdfefcxv »

talon8635 wrote: post #79
sdfefcxv wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh boy this couldn’t be more wrong. A society overtaken by ignorance does not value you, the self proclaimed genius.

Explain Mark Zuckerberg - 'dumb fucks'.

Thats the problem with this place - y'all think you are so smart.

Haha. No.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#222

Post by talon8635 »

sdfefcxv wrote: post #221
talon8635 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy this couldn’t be more wrong. A society overtaken by ignorance does not value you, the self proclaimed genius.

Explain Mark Zuckerberg - 'dumb fucks'. Thats the problem with this place - y'all think you are so smart. Haha. No.

Help me understand your question. I honestly can’t connect the dots. What do you mean re Zuck?

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#223

Post by code_biologist »

nomel wrote: post #74
code_biologist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing and videos produced before 2022 are the information equivalent of low-background steel (steel produced before the atom bomb era). Not all are precious, but they are important. AI influences are so pervasive at this point, even in informational writing from domain experts. Relentless grounding is my personal solution for my AI epistemic crisis, but it's an expensive solution in terms of time and effort, and tr…

What is "grounding"?

I do mean "grounding" as seeking the primary source of information by hand as my sibling commenter said.

If an LLM says something about history, have it give you source documents so that you can verify. If it says Earth's gravitational constant is 98 [sic] m/s^2, have it generate a prediction of a timed 1m paperclip drop test, and go do it yourself.

It's perhaps excessive in the case of gravity, but for things that matter like medical stuff I tell LLMs to expose their step by step causal reasoning / inference, and then check whether I buy it myself. SotA models' biochemistry + neurochemistry is often pretty solid. Often their answers are based on a slightly hallucinated understanding if it's a spatial anatomy question. It's fun when you get some research paper citations and then upon reading them decide you don't agree with the underlying research (eg. fMRI studies often make broad / interesting claims based on small sample sizes or sample populations that are clearly biased).

To be clear, I don't think that the LLM's self explained reasoning in a single turn is how it actually arrived at a given conclusion, but I just want to expose and bind the final conclusion to a verifiable epistemic chain.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#224

Post by Dylan16807 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #108
slibhb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also don't give them AI for things they don't know, perhaps The study doesn't show that at all. It didn't test actual AI. They could have tested a cohort of subjects with access to actual ChatGPT. Ask yourself why they didn't.

Because this is exactly what they controlled for. FTA: > The researchers used Step 3.5 Flash, a model that was usually wrong on these questions, precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool. (emphasis mine)

> precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool

That only works if they're experienced with model(s) of that level of unreliability and this is presented as one.

If they're used to a model that's more capable, and think the test model is similar, that's a huge confounding factor all by itself. It's not quite like giving fake credentials to a guy off the street and presenting them as an expert, but it's largely similar.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#225

Post by beepbooptheory »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #224
beepbooptheory wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is exactly what they controlled for. FTA: > The researchers used Step 3.5 Flash, a model that was usually wrong on these questions, precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool. (emphasis mine)

> precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool That only works if they're experienced with model(s) of that level of unreliability and this is presented as one. If they're used to a model that's more capable, and think the test model is similar, that's a huge confounding factor all by itself. It's not quite like giving fake credentials to a guy off the street…

Just really really missing the point here in a kind of revealing way.. You probably have access to some really reliable models if I had to guess!

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#226

Post by Dylan16807 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #225
Dylan16807 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool That only works if they're experienced with model(s) of that level of unreliability and this is presented as one. If they're used to a model that's more capable, and think the test model is similar, that's a huge confounding factor all by itself. It's not quite like giving fake credentials to a guy off the street…

Just really really missing the point here in a kind of revealing way.. You probably have access to some really reliable models if I had to guess!

I've never used AI except for sometimes getting distracted by google search's builtin wrongness factory. So whatever "revealing" you think you found is completely imaginary. Rethink your assumptions here.

So please make an actual argument. How am I missing the point? It's true that someone trusting the AI in this test is not practicing "sensible delegation to a reliable tool". But what actually matters is whether they are practicing "sensible delegation" full stop. There's a big difference between "the subject inappropriately trusts AI in general" and "the specific test setup deceived the subjects". In the latter case, the attempt to remove the "sensible delegation" factor failed.

Edit: And any argument that uses "any LLM they would normally use is unreliable" as a basis is begging the question. If you can just assert that then you don't need to do anything to disprove sensible delegation. But if you can't assert it, the proof doesn't work right. So either the proof is pointless or it's insufficient.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#227

Post by [deleted] »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #207
what wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending that “lazy answer” because you assumed the other person hasn’t tried solving the question themselves seems like the “uncivil” action. You should probably assume your colleague has tried before asking for help, and probably tried the same lazy route you used to respond.

> You should probably assume your colleague has tried before asking for help, Spoken like someone who has never worked in a customer support role. You can never assume competency, from anyone. Even the best amd brightest have bad days.

[deleted]

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#228

Post by beepbooptheory »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #226
beepbooptheory wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just really really missing the point here in a kind of revealing way.. You probably have access to some really reliable models if I had to guess!

I've never used AI except for sometimes getting distracted by google search's builtin wrongness factory. So whatever "revealing" you think you found is completely imaginary. Rethink your assumptions here. So please make an actual argument. How am I missing the point? It's true that someone trusting the AI in this test is not practicing "sensible delegation to a reliable tool". But what actually matters is whether the…

The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else.

Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about any given AIs "reliability" or not. It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

There is no damning, sweeping thing to argue for here, this is not an editorial or an opinion, and does not purport to even be some big finding I would say. It's a pop sci article about a study done by (I presume) sociologists.

So yes, I would either way say you missed the point here.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#229

Post by Dylan16807 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #228
Dylan16807 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used AI except for sometimes getting distracted by google search's builtin wrongness factory. So whatever "revealing" you think you found is completely imaginary. Rethink your assumptions here. So please make an actual argument. How am I missing the point? It's true that someone trusting the AI in this test is not practicing "sensible delegation to a reliable tool". But what actually matters is whether the…

The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else. Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about an…

> The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else.

...Are you saying there is a difference between an "argument" and a "point"? And you accuse me of missing what people are saying..

Okay, they were making a point about how people delegate. They wanted to remove a confounding factor "so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool." But because of how people judge things, they failed to remove that factor, and possibly made it worse.

> It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

But they decided they cared about removing the "sensible delegation" explanation. I'm not imposing on that on them. They thought it was important to remove, and they did something that doesn't remove it at all.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#230

Post by beepbooptheory »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #229
beepbooptheory wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else. Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about an…

> The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else. ...Are you saying there is a difference between an "argument" and a "point"? And you accuse me of missing what p…

I mean yeah.. An argument is typically something pretty different from a "point"... Idk why that seems so crazy? If I do an experiment, I would never say I am arguing something. I wouldn't even say I was making the point. I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you. It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way.

As for the experiment itself, this takes like two minutes to look up:

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1

There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.

Also, like I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment? I just read it, I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity. Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?

Post reply on HN