5 ms·

> What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. … I've both seen online and heard people quote LLM output as if it were authoritative. Thats not an

> What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. … I've both seen online and heard people quote LLM output as if it were authoritative. Thats not an LLM problem. But indeed quite bothersome. Dont tell me what Chatgpt told you. Tell me what you know. Maybe you got it from ChatGPT and verified it. Great. But my jaw kind of drops when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct.

trial3 2y ago
It might not be an LLM problem, but it’s an AI-as-product problem. I feel like every major player’s gamble is that they can cement distinct branding and model capabilities (as perceived by the public) faster than the gradual calcification of public AI perception catches up with model improvements - every time a consumer gets burned by AI output in even small ways, the “AI version of Siri/Alexa only being used for music and timers” problem looms a tiny, tiny bit larger.
- chii 2y ago
  Why is that a problem tho? Branding for current products have this property today - for example, apple products are seen as being used by creatives and such.
nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
> But my jaw kind of drops when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct. Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor, so is it totally their fault? They've heard about the uncountable sums of money spent on creating such software, why would they assume it was anything short of advertised?
- yunwal 2y ago
  > Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor Why does this imply that they’re always correct? I’m always genuinely confused when people pretend like hallucinations are some secret that AI companies are hiding. Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    > Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”. In small, de-emphasized text, relegated to the far corner of the screen. Yet, none of the TV advertisements I've seen have spent any significant fraction of the ad warning about these dangers. Every ad I've seen presents someone asking a question to the LLM, getting an answer and immediately trusting it. So, yes, they all have some light-grey 12px disclaimer somewhere. Surprisingly, that disclaimer does not carry nearly the same weight as the rest of the industry's combined marketing efforts.
    - JimDabell 2y ago
      > In small, de-emphasized text, relegated to the far corner of the screen. I just opened ChatGPT.com and typed in the question “When was Mr T born?”. When I got the answer there were these things on screen: - A menu trigger in the top-left. - Log in / Sign up in the top right - The discussion, in the centre. - A T&Cs disclaimer at the bottom. - An input box at the bottom. - “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” directly underneath the input box. I dislike the fact that it’s low contrast, but it’s not in a far corner, it’s immediately below the primary input. There’s a grand total of six things on screen, two of which are tucked away in a corner. This is a very minimal UI, and they put the warning message right where people interact with it. It’s not lost in a corner of a busy interface somewhere.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        I remember when Google results called out the ads as distinct from the search results. That was necessary to build trust until they had enough power to convert that trust into money and power.
        JimDabell 2y ago
        Speculating that they may at some point in the future remove that message does not mean that it is not there now. This was the point being made: > Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”.
- cmbothwell 2y ago
  I’ve come to believe a more depressing take: they _want_ to believe it, and therefore do. No disclaimer is gonna change that.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  > Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor, so is it totally their fault? Well... yeah.
chii 2y ago
> when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct. people used to say the exact same thing with wikipedia back when it first started.
- sandeepkd 2y ago
  And that is still accurate today. Information always contains a bias from the narrators perspective. Having multiple sources allows one to triangulate the accuracy of information. Making people use one source of information would allow the business to control the entire narrative. Its just more of a business around people and sentiments than being bullish on science.
- nunez 2y ago
  Correct; Wikipedia is still not authoritative.
  - wwweston 2y ago
    Wikipedia will cite and often broadly source. Wikipedia has an auditable decision trail for content conflicts. It behaves more like an accountable mediator of authority. Perhaps LLMs offering those (among other) features would be reasonably matched in a authorativity comparison.
    - trashtester 2y ago
      Authority, yes, accountable, not so much. Basically at the level of other publishers, meaning they can be as biased as MSNBC or Fox News, depending on who controls them.
- kragen 2y ago
  These are not similar. Wikipedia says the same thing to everybody, and when what it says is wrong, anybody can correct it, and they do. Consequently it's always been fairly reliable.
  - mjevans 2y ago
darthrupert 2y ago
Is it worse or better than quoting a Twitter comment and taking that as it were authoritative?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  It remains proportional to the earned prestige of the speaker.
mdp2021 2y ago
> Thats not an LLM problem It is, if the purpose of LLMs was to be AI. "Large language model" as a choir of pseudorandom millions converged into a voice - that was achieved, but it is by definition out of the professional realm. If it is to be taken as "artificial intelligence", then it has to have competitive intelligence.

trial3 2y ago

It might not be an LLM problem, but it’s an AI-as-product problem. I feel like every major player’s gamble is that they can cement distinct branding and model capabilities (as perceived by the public) faster than the gradual calcification of public AI perception catches up with model improvements - every time a consumer gets burned by AI output in even small ways, the “AI version of Siri/Alexa only being used for music and timers” problem looms a tiny, tiny bit larger.

chii 2y ago
Why is that a problem tho? Branding for current products have this property today - for example, apple products are seen as being used by creatives and such.

nyarlathotep_ 2y ago

> But my jaw kind of drops when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct. Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor, so is it totally their fault? They've heard about the uncountable sums of money spent on creating such software, why would they assume it was anything short of advertised?

yunwal 2y ago
> Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor Why does this imply that they’re always correct? I’m always genuinely confused when people pretend like hallucinations are some secret that AI companies are hiding. Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  > Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”. In small, de-emphasized text, relegated to the far corner of the screen. Yet, none of the TV advertisements I've seen have spent any significant fraction of the ad warning about these dangers. Every ad I've seen presents someone asking a question to the LLM, getting an answer and immediately trusting it. So, yes, they all have some light-grey 12px disclaimer somewhere. Surprisingly, that disclaimer does not carry nearly the same weight as the rest of the industry's combined marketing efforts.
  - JimDabell 2y ago
    > In small, de-emphasized text, relegated to the far corner of the screen. I just opened ChatGPT.com and typed in the question “When was Mr T born?”. When I got the answer there were these things on screen: - A menu trigger in the top-left. - Log in / Sign up in the top right - The discussion, in the centre. - A T&Cs disclaimer at the bottom. - An input box at the bottom. - “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” directly underneath the input box. I dislike the fact that it’s low contrast, but it’s not in a far corner, it’s immediately below the primary input. There’s a grand total of six things on screen, two of which are tucked away in a corner. This is a very minimal UI, and they put the warning message right where people interact with it. It’s not lost in a corner of a busy interface somewhere.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      I remember when Google results called out the ads as distinct from the search results. That was necessary to build trust until they had enough power to convert that trust into money and power.
      - JimDabell 2y ago
        Speculating that they may at some point in the future remove that message does not mean that it is not there now. This was the point being made: > Literally every chat interface says something like “LLMs are not always accurate”.
cmbothwell 2y ago
I’ve come to believe a more depressing take: they _want_ to believe it, and therefore do. No disclaimer is gonna change that.
nonethewiser 2y ago
> Yes but they're literally told by allegedly authoritative sources that it's going to change everything and eliminate intellectual labor, so is it totally their fault? Well... yeah.

chii 2y ago

> when people cite an LLM and just assume it’s correct. people used to say the exact same thing with wikipedia back when it first started.

sandeepkd 2y ago
And that is still accurate today. Information always contains a bias from the narrators perspective. Having multiple sources allows one to triangulate the accuracy of information. Making people use one source of information would allow the business to control the entire narrative. Its just more of a business around people and sentiments than being bullish on science.
nunez 2y ago
Correct; Wikipedia is still not authoritative.
- wwweston 2y ago
  Wikipedia will cite and often broadly source. Wikipedia has an auditable decision trail for content conflicts. It behaves more like an accountable mediator of authority. Perhaps LLMs offering those (among other) features would be reasonably matched in a authorativity comparison.
  - trashtester 2y ago
    Authority, yes, accountable, not so much. Basically at the level of other publishers, meaning they can be as biased as MSNBC or Fox News, depending on who controls them.
kragen 2y ago
These are not similar. Wikipedia says the same thing to everybody, and when what it says is wrong, anybody can correct it, and they do. Consequently it's always been fairly reliable.
- mjevans 2y ago

darthrupert 2y ago

Is it worse or better than quoting a Twitter comment and taking that as it were authoritative?

mdp2021 2y ago
It remains proportional to the earned prestige of the speaker.

mdp2021 2y ago

> Thats not an LLM problem It is, if the purpose of LLMs was to be AI. "Large language model" as a choir of pseudorandom millions converged into a voice - that was achieved, but it is by definition out of the professional realm. If it is to be taken as "artificial intelligence", then it has to have competitive intelligence.