Doing the former basically means killing the model-hosting business. Companies could develop models, use them internally and give them to their employees, but no public APIs exists. Companies strike legally binding contracts to use/license each other models, but the general public doesn't have access to those without something that would mitigate the legal risk.
Maybe years down the line, as attitudes soften, some companies would begin to push the boundaries. Automating the legal approval process, opening signups, etc.
This black and white assumption that because LLMs are not always giving probably correct answers therefore they are dangerous, reminds me of what the generation of my parents and teachers thought of Wikipedia when it became popular. The problems were different ("anyone can edit" vs. "hallucinates stuff"), but the mindset seems very similar.
LLMs aren’t competing with perfect, they are competing with websites that may or may not be full of errors, or asking someone that may or may not know what they are talking about.
Critical thinking is inconvenient and does not scale, but it's very important for finding the truth. Technology that disincentivizes critical thought makes it easier to spread lies.
True. At the same time, technology that removes the need for critical thinking is bona fide positive form of progress.
Think of e.g. consumer protection laws, and larger body of laws (and systems of enforcement) surrounding commerce. Their main goal is to reduce the risk for customers - and therefore, their need to critically evaluate every purchase. You don't as much critical thinking when you know certain classes of dangers are almost nonexistent; you don't need to overthink choices you know you can undo.
There are good and bad ways of eliminating inconvenience, but by itself, inconvenience is an indication of waste. Our lives are finite, and even our capacity to hope and dream is exhaustible. This makes inconvenience our enemy.
So yes, convenience and progress are strongly correlated but they're not the same.
Imagine: an impulsive person, suddenly facing the need to change the ownership structure of their mortgage, worried they'll have to pay a lot for this. A person who doesn't really know first thing about it. They enter a query in Google; because of their lack of domain knowledge, the query is missing one word. Without that word, the query matches two related but distinct kinds of ownership structures. Results for both come, and then AI summary happily blends them together. The person sees an explanation, panics, and shouts my ear off about the bad situation they've been put in by a third party. I'm confused (I know a bit more about this, but not much); they show me the phone.
I'm staring dumbfounded, looking at a seemingly nonsensical AI summary. But it's not the text that made me pause in shock - it's the fact that the other person took it as gospel, and yelled it at me.
Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. The way I see it now, the biggest problem isn't the garbage out that sometimes comes out of LLMs. The problem is the "garbage in" - specifically, the garbage that passes for thinking and communication among most of human population. An LLM may reason 100% correctly - it won't help when user supplies "wrong figures" without realizing it, and then acts on answer without thinking.
The world is not ready for systems that indulge people in their bullshit.
we never were. that's why the world is how it is rn.
According to the address on the business website that Apple Maps itself links to, the business is 432 km away from me.
This might be an "experience is the best teacher" situation. It'd probably be pretty hard to invent a disclaimer that'd be as effective as getting bit.
But they can't be as the whole premise of the boom is replacing human intellectual labor. They've said as much on many many occasions--see Anthropic's CEO going off about mass unemployment quite recently. How can the two of these co-exist?
However LLMs amplify this damage by sounding authoritative on everything and even worse being promoted as authoritative problem solvers for all domains with a small disclaimer. This double think is unacceptable.
But if they made the disclaimer bigger then the AI market would collapse in about an hour much like people’s usage does when they don’t verify something and get shot by someone actually authoritative. This has happened at work a couple of times and caused some fairly high profile problems. Many people refuse to use it now.
What we have is bullshit generator propped up by avoiding speaking the truth because the truth compromises the promoted utility. Classic bubble.
No, improper phrasing. Correct disclaimer is, "The below engine is structurally unreliable".
--
Comment, snipers. We cannot reply to unclear noise.