4 ms·
I'm not very anti-LLM/AI, but this is one of the scarier parts, to me at least. Data that is obscure, not easily fact-checked, and (outside of a handful of pe
by ziddoap 2y ago
I'm not very anti-LLM/AI, but this is one of the scarier parts, to me at least.
Data that is obscure, not easily fact-checked, and (outside of a
handful of people) there's no motivation to fact check it.
Incorrect data will sit there, mostly viewed by other bots,
incorporated into the next model. The issue is just going to snowball.
Good luck to any future historians that want to look back at
this time period.
- nine_k 2y agoSuch consequences might be undesired, but hardly unanticipated or surprising. Not to the smart folks who came up with LLMs. (A lot of what we're having around us now has been anticipated by sci-fi, but earlier sci-fi largely failed to predict the internet, so we have fewer predictions about such stuff. Lem's "Futurological Congress" could be seen as a weird anticipation of a deeply faked world.)
- graemep 2y agoHuman beings have been doing much the same for a very long time. It is particularly obvious on social media, but it has always hppend. > Good luck to any future historians that want to look back at this time period. Historians will look at primary sources and fact check them. However, society at large has always had huge misconceptions about history. Sometimes they are corrected (and its a game of whack-a-mole) and sometimes they spread.
- ziddoap 2y ago>Human beings have been doing much the same for a very long time. If you completely ignore the scale & speed at which LLMs can generate information compared to humans, sure. It seems silly to ignore that, though.