6 ms·

The bad thing is that people still think LLMs can be trusted at all. Companies integrating them into their offerings are not helping the public adopt the correc

The bad thing is that people still think LLMs can be trusted at all. Companies integrating them into their offerings are not helping the public adopt the correct mental framing of these tools as "plausible text generators".

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dorkwood 2y ago
This can be solved with more data. New tech like Windows Recall should be able to scrape enough of the world's data so that this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.
- threeseed 2y ago
  a) There is no evidence that it can be solved with more data. b) Windows Recall data is never going to make its way into public models.
  - dorkwood 2y ago
    > b) Windows Recall data is never going to make its way into public models. It doesn't need to. It just needs to make its way into OpenAI's models, which it will.
Gigachad 2y ago
The general public is getting lied to constantly. HN users have a bit more context to see through the bullshit but the marketing getting pushed in people is that these AI tools are super genius incredible world changing tools that make everyone 100x more productive.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Even many HN users instantly resort to misdirection via comparisons to humans or nebulous upcoming AGI instead of acknowledging that we have to live with these limitations for the forseeable future.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    Maybe we have a bunch of users who primarily code in languages with duck typing. So that extends over to assessing the abilities of LLMs -- "talks like a human, therefore it is the same thing." I'm only sorta kidding. I am surprised at the number of people who are comfortable with such a shallow conclusion.
- Last5Digits 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jtbayly 2y ago
    Blind cynicism? I’ve read people on HN arguing that AIs are currently fully conscious. This is not what I would call “blind cynicism."
    - Last5Digits 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > Where is this magical hype that seems so widespread yet is weirdly absent when you look for it? It was thick here a year ago, full of people predicting end of programming jobs within a year etc. Those people didn't understand the limitations inherent in these models. Today the general view here massively shifted towards doubt, since as we all know all those mad predictions made back then were proven wrong. Today people here have moved on, but you still find them all over subreddits with LLM users etc.
  - rurp 2y ago
    Man the techno-utopianism is awfully strong for some people when it comes to LLMs. There are a wide range of opinions about these models on HN, many positive and many point out the very real flaws the current models have. If you find this mix of takes so offensive you might want to reconsider your own opinions a bit. These models are interesting, but they aren't magically perfect. Most people outside of tech don't understands how these models work at even the highest level of them being text predictors or their output being highly dependent on the training data. Many people don't even realize the enormous amount of energy and data consumption required to train these models. Seriously, try asking a random relative how an LLM works at a basic level. You're likely to get a blank stare at even the term "LLM".
    - 2y ago
RecycledEle 2y ago
> The bad thing is that people still think LLMs can be trusted at all. LLMs are as trustworthy as humans. Humans have been being wrong for about as long as we have been lying. Whether you get information from a human or an LLM, check it. I worry about the people who insist on credible sources rather than checking information for themselves. I think 80% or more of them are trolling me, but there are some who genuinely do not apply the Scientific Method to check facts in their everyday life. I truly feel sorry for them.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Even if that were true (I don't think it is): The more important distinction between humans and LLMs is accountability. If a customer support agent gives you incorrect information, you can often hold the company liable for it (assuming you can prove it; I suppose there's a reason for why companies prefer certain support channels over others). If an AI "lies" to you, you're largely on your own right now.
  - Majromax 2y ago
    Not necessarily. In Canada, a case in February (https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/techlex/moffatt-v-air-canada-misrepresentation-ai-chatbot https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/techlex/moffatt-v-...) held that Air Canada could be held responsible for incorrect information about a refund given to a customer by its chatbot. Notwithstanding differences in jurisdiction, applying that idea to this case would rely on finding that Meta owed Gaudreau a duty of care that extended to the Meta AI chatbot. It would be more difficult to make this claim if Gaudreau had asked the question of Google, since Google itself is not usually responsible for false information uncovered by its searches.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      That's going to be indeed an interesting question (also discussed in this sibling thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40536860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40536860). My gut feeling is that it should be possible for companies to distinguish an AI product (i.e. as something provided to customers like a search engine, as you say) from an AI "working for them", but I can see a lot more disclaimers showing up in Meta's various AI chat channels soon.
joe_the_user 2y ago
Companies integrating them into their offerings are not helping the public adopt the correct mental framing of these tools as "plausible text generators" "Not helping" seems a wild understatement. "Deceiving people into taking the wrong frame" seems more accurate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dorkwood 2y ago

This can be solved with more data. New tech like Windows Recall should be able to scrape enough of the world's data so that this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.

threeseed 2y ago
a) There is no evidence that it can be solved with more data. b) Windows Recall data is never going to make its way into public models.
- dorkwood 2y ago
  > b) Windows Recall data is never going to make its way into public models. It doesn't need to. It just needs to make its way into OpenAI's models, which it will.

Gigachad 2y ago

The general public is getting lied to constantly. HN users have a bit more context to see through the bullshit but the marketing getting pushed in people is that these AI tools are super genius incredible world changing tools that make everyone 100x more productive.

dotnet00 2y ago
Even many HN users instantly resort to misdirection via comparisons to humans or nebulous upcoming AGI instead of acknowledging that we have to live with these limitations for the forseeable future.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Maybe we have a bunch of users who primarily code in languages with duck typing. So that extends over to assessing the abilities of LLMs -- "talks like a human, therefore it is the same thing." I'm only sorta kidding. I am surprised at the number of people who are comfortable with such a shallow conclusion.
Last5Digits 2y ago
[flagged]
- jtbayly 2y ago
  Blind cynicism? I’ve read people on HN arguing that AIs are currently fully conscious. This is not what I would call “blind cynicism."
  - Last5Digits 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > Where is this magical hype that seems so widespread yet is weirdly absent when you look for it? It was thick here a year ago, full of people predicting end of programming jobs within a year etc. Those people didn't understand the limitations inherent in these models. Today the general view here massively shifted towards doubt, since as we all know all those mad predictions made back then were proven wrong. Today people here have moved on, but you still find them all over subreddits with LLM users etc.
- rurp 2y ago
  Man the techno-utopianism is awfully strong for some people when it comes to LLMs. There are a wide range of opinions about these models on HN, many positive and many point out the very real flaws the current models have. If you find this mix of takes so offensive you might want to reconsider your own opinions a bit. These models are interesting, but they aren't magically perfect. Most people outside of tech don't understands how these models work at even the highest level of them being text predictors or their output being highly dependent on the training data. Many people don't even realize the enormous amount of energy and data consumption required to train these models. Seriously, try asking a random relative how an LLM works at a basic level. You're likely to get a blank stare at even the term "LLM".
  - 2y ago

RecycledEle 2y ago

> The bad thing is that people still think LLMs can be trusted at all. LLMs are as trustworthy as humans. Humans have been being wrong for about as long as we have been lying. Whether you get information from a human or an LLM, check it. I worry about the people who insist on credible sources rather than checking information for themselves. I think 80% or more of them are trolling me, but there are some who genuinely do not apply the Scientific Method to check facts in their everyday life. I truly feel sorry for them.

lxgr 2y ago
Even if that were true (I don't think it is): The more important distinction between humans and LLMs is accountability. If a customer support agent gives you incorrect information, you can often hold the company liable for it (assuming you can prove it; I suppose there's a reason for why companies prefer certain support channels over others). If an AI "lies" to you, you're largely on your own right now.
- Majromax 2y ago
  Not necessarily. In Canada, a case in February (https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/techlex/moffatt-v-air-canada-misrepresentation-ai-chatbot https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/techlex/moffatt-v-...) held that Air Canada could be held responsible for incorrect information about a refund given to a customer by its chatbot. Notwithstanding differences in jurisdiction, applying that idea to this case would rely on finding that Meta owed Gaudreau a duty of care that extended to the Meta AI chatbot. It would be more difficult to make this claim if Gaudreau had asked the question of Google, since Google itself is not usually responsible for false information uncovered by its searches.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    That's going to be indeed an interesting question (also discussed in this sibling thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40536860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40536860). My gut feeling is that it should be possible for companies to distinguish an AI product (i.e. as something provided to customers like a search engine, as you say) from an AI "working for them", but I can see a lot more disclaimers showing up in Meta's various AI chat channels soon.

joe_the_user 2y ago

Companies integrating them into their offerings are not helping the public adopt the correct mental framing of these tools as "plausible text generators" "Not helping" seems a wild understatement. "Deceiving people into taking the wrong frame" seems more accurate.