I feel like this is knee-jerk over-generalization.
Having Google summarize a too-long recipe (a problem they created, by the way) into just the simple ingredients and instructions is NOT "deciding your view of the world".
Having Google summarize a too-long recipe (a problem they created, by the way) into just the simple ingredients and instructions is NOT "deciding your view of the world".
I actually think the issue is that the long essay provides more space to put advertising alongside or interrupting the flow.
The beginning could just be "see this related product or service." Which won't mess with the content. Perhaps that's fine.
I'd argue though that any summarizing tool inherently has a bias. It must choose to ignore certain details and make decisions about what to highlight.
As we understand LLM's more and the stuff that summarizes folks controlling them will be able to make those decisions and the money and power behind that will absolutely abuse it.
That's not even considering the effects this would have on journalism and writing in general if most of it gets summarized.
And humans already summarize and (mis)characterize. I just don’t see blaming a tool that is used by people as they see fit.
Seems like a pretty facile argument. Bicycles and helicopters don't need to be trained on ridiculously largest datasets on ridiculously large super computers.
On a mass scale, maybe 0.2% of people would double check the source page. The rest would be unknowingly influenced to eat "healthier" by Google.
Yes, this seems unlikely. But so has much in the last 5 years.
Why are we deliberately charging head-first into social man-in-the-middle attacks? We already don't trust each other enough. LLMs lie, and lie often. Why should we trust them for anything?
Would you be OK asking a LLM what food is safe for an infant, or a pet dog? Without checking the source?