>you note 3 things that LLMs are known for, but not all the things they are known for. Instead you conveniently leave out the positive benefits of these models that are causing people to promote them.
When talking about the pitfalls of bringing GPT-4 as a tool for government officials, the positive features are outside of the scope.
Obviously they exist, otherwise it wouldn't be proposed. But it's not our job to do a sales pitch for GPT-4.
>Further, the narrative you paint suggests that no one in government is competent in anything and can only follow directions.
No. The OP suggests that the primary users of the tool would be low-level, underpaid officials, who are mostly following directions.
Not because it's their fault as human beings - but because their positions require them to do so, and perhaps for good reasons.
In any case, direction-followers (of questionable competence and low pay grade) make up the bulk of large organizations in general as a consequence of growth. Which is why the tool is being pitched in the first place: to streamline work of people who would rather not do it in the first place.
>Finally, you combine the heavily biased perspectives you took and proposed that it would lead to a massive scandal in the government, b
As if the governments aren't prone to massive scandals even without GPT-4 in place. Try checking the news today, you may be surprised.
>not just any scandal, one that is actually a coordinated attack BY MICROSOFT to screw the government, their largest customer.
"By Microsoft" wasn't in OP's statement. Manipulating data and statistics to get the desired outcome from seemingly impartial algorithms is something our government has been engaging in for a very, very long time.
Redlining[1] and gerrymandering[2] are just two prime examples.
We don't have to make any assumptions or apply biased perspectives to say that we expect:
1)Training data to be manipulated by entities with interest in influencing the outcome;
2)Lives of countless people being adversely affected, and
3)There being a massive scandal as a result.
The government has a long track history of 1, 2, and 3 happening any time a system is introduced which lacks transparency, and large language models are the epitome of that.
The only unrealistic thing about OP's statement is that a scandal will actually happen, instead of people getting away with it.
>It's always interesting to see how people engage with new technologies on HN.
And it is even more interesting to see how people here engage with ethics.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/what-is-redlin...
[2]https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerr...