3 ms·
Everyone knows humans can be idiots. The problem is that people seem to think LLMs can’t be idiots, and because they aren’t human there is no way to punish them
by lazide 2y ago
Everyone knows humans can be idiots. The problem is that people seem to think LLMs can’t be idiots, and because they aren’t human there is no way to punish them. And then people give them too much credit/power, for their own purposes.
Which makes LLMs far more dangerous than idiot humans in most cases.
- brookst 2y agoNo. Nobody thinks LLMs are perfect. That’s a strawman. And… I am really not sure punishment is the answer to fallibility, outside of almost kinky Catholicism. The reality is these things are very good, but imperfect, much like people.
- lazide 2y agoClearly you haven’t been listening to any CEO press releases lately? And when was the last time a support chatbot let you actually complain or bypass to a human?
- thecupisblue 2y agoSorry man, but I literally know of startups invested into by YC where CEO's for 80% of their management decisions/vision/comms use ChatGPT ... or should I say some use Claude now, as they think it's smarter and does not make mistakes. Let that sink in.
- onion2k 2y agoI wouldn't be surprised if GPT genuinely makes better decisions than an inexperienced, first-time CEO who has only been a dev before, especially if the person prompting it has actually put some effort into understanding their own weaknesses. It certainly wouldn't be any worse than someone who's only experience is reading a few management books.
- lazide 2y agoAnd here is a great example of the problem. An LLM doesn’t make decisions. It generates text that plausibly looks like it made a decision, when prompted with the right text.
- beardedwizard 2y agoWhy is this distinction lost in every thread on this topic, I don't get it.
- lazide 2y agoA lot more people are credulous idiots than anyone wants to believe - and the confusion/misunderstanding is being actively propagated.
- beardedwizard 2y agoI think we have to be open to the possibility it's us not them, but I haven't been convinced yet
- brookst 2y agoSeeing dissenting opinions as being “actively propagated” by “credulous idiots” sure makes it easy to remain steady in one’s beliefs, I suppose. Not a lot of room to learn, but no discomfort from uncertainty.
- brookst 2y agoBecause it’s a distinction without a difference. You can say the same thing about people: many/most of our decisions are made before our consciousness is involved. Much of our “decision making” is just post hoc rationalization. What the “LLMs don’t reason like we humans” crowd is missing is that we humans actually don’t reason as much as we would like to believe[0]. It’s not that LLMs are perfect or rational or flawless… it’s that their gaps in these areas aren’t atypical for humans. Saying “but they don’t truly understand things like we do” betrays a lack of understanding of humans, not LLMs. 0. https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/482/nisbett%20saying%20more.pdf https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/482/nisbett%20s...
- varelse 2y ago[dead]
- Mordisquitos 2y ago> No. Nobody thinks LLMs are perfect. That’s a strawman. I'm afraid that's not the case. Literally yesterday I was speaking with an old friend who was telling us how one of his coworkers had presented a document with mistakes and serious miscalculations as part of some project. When my friend pointed out the mistakes, which were intuitively obvious just by critically understanding the numbers, the guy kept insisting "no, it's correct, I did it with ChatGPT". It took my friend doing the calculations explicitly and showing that they made no sense to convince the guy that it was wrong.
- 0points 2y agoNot people. Certain gullible people, who tends to listen to certain charlatans. Rational, intelligent people wouldn't consider replacing a skilled human worker with a LLM that on a good day can compete with a 3-year old. You may see the current age as litmus for critical thinking.
- varelse 2y ago[dead]