• @anus
    link
    English
    34 months ago

    Why not

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months ago

      Because too frequently it gives plausible-sounding but completely unfounded statements.

      Also it can go more darkly wrong, and all the extra checks and safeguards don’t always protect it.

      • @anus
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        Why is this different than talking to a human

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Because a human can understand the situation, and the person they’re talking to, and reply with wisdom, rather than just parroting what seems like what they heard before.

          • @anus
            link
            English
            11 month ago

            Are you saying that humans don’t parrot what seems like what they heard before?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 month ago

              Oh we absolutely do. And we tell lies, and we misunderstand, and miscommunicate.

              But not all the time, and not everyone. So if your friend if they’d like dinner, you expect the answer to be true to what they want, not just whatever sounds good to the general population. If you read a scientific journal, you expect the scientists to represent the facts and even the meaning of their research, not parrot some ideas from a half-forgotten textbook. And if you see a professional counsellor, you expect them to have a good understanding of human nature, and to genuinely empathise with your situation, and have good ways to help you out.

              And of course all three of those examples fail sometimes, which is why as part of life we learn who we can trust and to what extent.

              • @anus
                link
                English
                11 month ago

                I would argue that all of the cases you presented fail at a comparable rate compared to foundational LLMs

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 month ago

                  And I would argue that’s utter nonsense and the very existence of sane rational speech disproves it.

                  • @anus
                    link
                    English
                    11 month ago

                    I would argue that you’ve clearly formed your opinion without spending significant time giving foundational LLMs a chance

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          Some of it is, as I can personally attest. And well-dressed lies can certainly do a person much harm.