3 ms·
I wouldn't put too much hope on this technology bringing more good than harm to the world.
by thrance 2y ago
I wouldn't put too much hope on this technology bringing more good than harm to the world.
- ketzo 2y agoIf we don’t actively try to identify and implement positive use cases, then yes, it’ll definitely bring more harm than good. Isn’t that all the more reason to call out our high hopes?
- thrance 2y agoI don't know what in my comment made you think I was opposed to seeking positive applications of this technology. From the guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y agoOh, we're guidelines posting? > Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
- mopenstein 2y agoBut it will bring some percentage of good and some percentage of bad. Which ain't half bad, if you ask me.
- moritzwarhier 2y agoWhat a quip! What if it's 51% bad?
- martinsnow 2y agoWhat do you do when it flags you or someone you know who's innocent? Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. Normal people don't understand why they are so confident. They're confident because they believe all the data they have is correct. I forsee a future with many faux trials because they don't understand critical thinking.
- RussianCow 2y ago> Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.
- snowe2010 2y agoThis is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y agoI don't see that as particularly analogous. The average person will have had LLM technology in their own hands for years, whereas with DNA it was completely foreign to them and their only choice really was to trust the experts. And on top of that DNA testing matured and is very useful now.
- 8organicbits 2y agoIf you are interested in the history of pseudoscience in the courtroom and methods for deciding what should be permitted in court, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard It is, and will continue to be, a hard problem.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThe bad is already priced in. Nothing wrong with hoping for more good.