3 ms·

I don't think so. It's the same thing with photography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography If you tr

I don't think so. It's the same thing with photography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography If you trust symbols blindly, sure it's a hazard. But if you treat it as a plausible answer then it's all good. It's still your job to do the heavy lifting of understanding the domain of the latent search space, curate the answers and verify the information generated There is no free lunch. LLMs isn't made to make your life easier. It's made for you to focus on what matters which is the creation of meaning.

lazide 2y ago
Most people will cut corners on verifying at the first chance they get. That’s the existential risk.
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  There are better things to do than focusing on these people, at least for me.
  - lazide 2y ago
    ‘These people’ is everyone in the right circumstances. Ignore it at all our peril.
    - gchamonlive 2y ago
      If I have to choose peril for the sake of my sanity, I'd do so. However we are not talking about everyone, are we? Just people that "will cut corners on verifying at the first chance they get". Is it you? I have no idea. I can only remain vigilant so it's not myself.
signa11 2y ago
I really don't understand your response. a better way to ask the same question would probably be: would you learn numerical-methods from (a video of) Mr. Hamming or LLM ?
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  From Wikipedia > Sontag argues that the proliferation of photographic images had begun to establish within people a "chronic voyeuristic relation to the world."[1] Among the consequences of this practice of photography is that the meaning of all events is leveled and made equal. This is the same with photography as with llms. The same with anything symbolic actually. It's just a representation of reality. If you trust a photograph fully that can give you a representation of reality that isn't grounded in reality. It's semiotics. Same with llm, if you trust it fully you are bound to get screwed by hallucination. There are gaps in the logical jumps, I know. I'd recommend you take a look at Philosophize This' episodes about her work to fill them at least superficially.

lazide 2y ago

Most people will cut corners on verifying at the first chance they get. That’s the existential risk.

gchamonlive 2y ago
There are better things to do than focusing on these people, at least for me.
- lazide 2y ago
  ‘These people’ is everyone in the right circumstances. Ignore it at all our peril.
  - gchamonlive 2y ago
    If I have to choose peril for the sake of my sanity, I'd do so. However we are not talking about everyone, are we? Just people that "will cut corners on verifying at the first chance they get". Is it you? I have no idea. I can only remain vigilant so it's not myself.

signa11 2y ago

I really don't understand your response. a better way to ask the same question would probably be: would you learn numerical-methods from (a video of) Mr. Hamming or LLM ?

gchamonlive 2y ago
From Wikipedia > Sontag argues that the proliferation of photographic images had begun to establish within people a "chronic voyeuristic relation to the world."[1] Among the consequences of this practice of photography is that the meaning of all events is leveled and made equal. This is the same with photography as with llms. The same with anything symbolic actually. It's just a representation of reality. If you trust a photograph fully that can give you a representation of reality that isn't grounded in reality. It's semiotics. Same with llm, if you trust it fully you are bound to get screwed by hallucination. There are gaps in the logical jumps, I know. I'd recommend you take a look at Philosophize This' episodes about her work to fill them at least superficially.