> Anyone with two brain cells should know that one should review outcome with a little bit of common sense? Have you not met people? First, technology compani

> Anyone with two brain cells should know that one should review outcome with a little bit of common sense? Have you not met people? First, technology companies have spent decades marketing their solutions as magical and perfect. And now it's the public fault they're being believed? Second, even for the skeptic, when a technology works 90% of the time it's easy to start to take for granted that it'll be right the other 10%, and that leads to entirely understandable complacency (a lot of climbers have died this way and they're typically incredibly skilled and diligent). Worse, when machines get it wrong, they can get it wrong in surprising and unpredictable ways. Third, information asymmetry can mean the user cannot verify the outputs. If you, for example, don't know anything about Hawaii (or in that case, maybe you don't know how to read a map--that is a skill, after all), how can you know you're being led into disaster? LLMs have a these problems in spades. They've been marketed as miracles (so much so that some folks have mused about their potential sentience), they're right a lot of the time but very wrong sometimes, and when they are wrong they're wrong in very strange ways, and they can easily used by people who are not sufficient skilled or knowledgeable to verify their outputs. Who would then be surprised by stories like this?