2 ms·

If you say you're doing research for a novel, should it consider that plausible? How much does it need to know about its users to vet them? I think part of the

If you say you're doing research for a novel, should it consider that plausible? How much does it need to know about its users to vet them? I think part of the answer is that AI chat doesn't need to be general-purpose. It turned out that people really liked using a chat UI that seems to be general purpose, but you don't need to make answering any question a user asks your business. You don't need to provide therapy if you're not in the therapy business. It should be possible to specialize. But in order for that to work, a company needs to explain to its customers what business it's in.

scared_together 3mo ago
> I think part of the answer is that AI chat doesn't need to be general-purpose. It turned out that people really liked using a chat UI that seems to be general purpose, but you don't need to make answering any question a user asks your business. I was under the impression that the lack of specialization is an aspect of the models themselves, not merely the UI or harnesses. For example, the recent OpenAI success in a mathematics proof was accomplished with a general purpose model [0]. > The proof came from a new general-purpose reasoning model, rather than from a system trained specifically for mathematics, scaffolded to search through proof strategies, or targeted at the unit distance problem in particular. Once the model is trained on general purpose data, specialization is just another kind of guardrail, as vulnerable to “jailbreaking” or prompt injection as any other content-based restriction. [0] https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/ https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...