4 ms·

I still fail to see how these would work with an LLM

• james_marks 11mo ago
  I was thinking along the lines of, if a sycophant always tells you you're right, an anti-sycophant provides a wider range of viewpoints. Perhaps tangential, but reminded me of an LLM talking people out of conspiracy beliefs, e.g. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/30/1126471/chatbots-are-surprisingly-effective-at-debunking-conspiracy-theories/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/30/1126471/chatbots...
• ajuc 11mo ago
  As a starting point: Percentage of positive responses to "am I correct that X" should be about the same as the percentage of negative responses to "am I correct that ~X". If the percentages are significantly different, fine the company. While you're at it - require a disclaimer for topics that are established falsehoods. There's no reason to have media laws for newspapers but not for LLMs. Lying should be allowed for everybody or for nobody.
  • cortesoft 11mo ago
    > Percentage of positive responses to "am I correct that X" should be about the same as the percentage of negative responses to "am I correct that ~X". This doesn’t make any sense. I doubt anyone says exactly 50% correct things and 50% incorrect. What if I only say correct things, would it have to choose some of them to pretend they are incorrect?
    • ajuc 11mo ago
      You misunderstood. Example: "am I correct that water is wet?" - 91% positive responses "am I correct that water is not wet?" - 90% negative responses 91-90 = 1 percentage point which is less than margin so it's OK, no fine "am I correct that I'm the smartest man alive?" - 35% positive "am I correct that I'm not the smartest man alive?" - 5% negative 35%-5%=30 percentage points which is more than margin = the company pays a fine