return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 days agoYouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI Usegizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square438linkfedilinkarrow-up1518arrow-down147
arrow-up1471arrow-down1external-linkYouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI Usegizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 days agomessage-square438linkfedilink
minus-squaresem@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·18 days ago There’s a large list of things LLM are known to not be reliable for: searching anything beyond surface informations This implies that it is reliable for “surface informations” which i disagree with, though a lot of people get sucked in that way
minus-squarecley_faye@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 days agoIf you ask any big LLM a mundane question, it’s likely to get it right. And as you put it, it’s one of the way people get sucked in. But it does work, very inefficiently, for that purpose. Saying it does not is lying to yourself.
minus-squaresem@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·6 days agoI disagree. A big LLM might get a mundane question right, but it might not. To call it reliable is laughable. What it is is confident, and if you don’t know the answer yourself, it will seem plausible.
This implies that it is reliable for “surface informations” which i disagree with, though a lot of people get sucked in that way
If you ask any big LLM a mundane question, it’s likely to get it right. And as you put it, it’s one of the way people get sucked in. But it does work, very inefficiently, for that purpose. Saying it does not is lying to yourself.
I disagree. A big LLM might get a mundane question right, but it might not. To call it reliable is laughable.
What it is is confident, and if you don’t know the answer yourself, it will seem plausible.