3 ms·
That doesn't really make sense. You either make the LLM provider liable for the output of the model, or you have the current model. The friction already exists.
by eddythompson80 1y ago
That doesn't really make sense. You either make the LLM provider liable for the output of the model, or you have the current model. The friction already exists. All these AI companies and cloud providers are running "censored models" and more censorship is added at every layer. What would more friction be here? more pop-ups?
Doing the former basically means killing the model-hosting business. Companies could develop models, use them internally and give them to their employees, but no public APIs exists. Companies strike legally binding contracts to use/license each other models, but the general public doesn't have access to those without something that would mitigate the legal risk.
Maybe years down the line, as attitudes soften, some companies would begin to push the boundaries. Automating the legal approval process, opening signups, etc.
- minimaxir 1y agoYes, more popups, retention metrics be damned. Even 2 years since ChatGPT, many people still think it's omniscent which is what's causing trouble.
- eddythompson80 1y agoI don't think more pop-ups solve anything. It'll just make a chrome extension called "ChatGPTAutoAccept" get popular. You think someone who is thinking it's omniscent will suddenly reconsider because a "reminder, this is dumb as shit" pop up keeps annoying them every 5 minutes?
- MaxikCZ 1y agoPeople who are suspectible to read AI slop as universal truth do so because they dont read much at all. I guess you would be surprised how huge amount of users dont bother to read anything at all: a popup only exists in a sense "how do I close this", which is being solved by clicking at the most visually distinct button. If you asked them what they clicked or what the popup was about, they look at you like you are crazy for even assuming they should know.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoHyperbole is as much of a problem. ChatGPT is not omniscient, but it's also not "dumb as shit", at least not across the board. LLMs got popular in big part because they provide unique, distinctly new value. This black and white assumption that because LLMs are not always giving probably correct answers therefore they are dangerous, reminds me of what the generation of my parents and teachers thought of Wikipedia when it became popular. The problems were different ("anyone can edit" vs. "hallucinates stuff"), but the mindset seems very similar.