• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    No, it isn’t.

    You’re allowing a simple tool with literally zero reading comprehension to do your reading for you. It’s not surprising your understanding of what the tech is is lacking.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Your comment is simply counterfactual. I do indeed find LLMs to be useful. Saying “no you don’t!” Is frankly ridiculous.

      I’m a computer programmer. Not directly experienced with LLMs themselves, but I understand the technology around them and have written program that make use of them. I know what their capabilities and limitations are.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your claim that it’s capable of doing what it claims isn’t just false.

        It’s an egregious, massively harmful lie, and repeating it is always extremely malicious and inexcusable behavior.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I have genuinely found LLMs to be useful in many contexts. I use them to brainstorm and flesh out ideas for tabletop roleplaying adventures, to write song lyrics, to write Python scripts to do various random tasks. I’ve talked with them to learn about stuff, and verified that they were correct by checking their references. LLMs are demonstrably capable of these things. I demonstrated it.

          Go ahead and refrain from using them yourself if you really don’t want to, for whatever reason. But exclaiming “no it doesn’t!” In the face of them actually doing the things you say they don’t is just silly.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            They absolutely cannot reliably summarize the result of searches, like this post is about, and OP in and of itself proves conclusively.

            Any meaningful rate of failures at all makes them massively, catastrophically damaging to humanity as a whole. “Just don’t use them” absolutely does not prevent their harm. Pushing them as competent is extremely fucking unacceptable behavior.

            And this is all completely ignoring the obscene energy costs associated with making web searches complete and utter dogshit.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              They absolutely cannot reliably summarize the result of searches, like this post is about

              The problem is that it did summarize the result of this search, the results of this search included one of those “if the Earth was the size of a grain of sand, Alpha Centauri would be X kilometers away” analogies. It did exactly the thing you’re saying it can’t do.

              Any meaningful rate of failures at all makes them massively, catastrophically damaging to humanity as a whole.

              Nothing is perfect. Does that make everything a massive catastrophic threat to humanity? How have we managed to survive for this long?

              You’re ridiculously overblowing this. It’s a “ha ha, looks like AI made a whoopsie because I didn’t understand that I actually asked it to do” situation. It’s not Skynet coming to convince us to eat cyanide.

              And this is all completely ignoring the obscene energy costs associated with making web searches complete and utter dogshit.

              Of course it’s ignoring that. It’s not real.

              You realize that energy costs money? If each web search cost an “obscene” amount, how is Microsoft managing to pay for it all? Why are they paying for it? Do you think they’ll continue paying for it indefinitely? It’d be a completely self-solving problem.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Summaries distinguish substance from nonsense. It cannot be described as a summary of a piece of content if it does not accurately portray the substance of that content.

                LLMs aren’t imperfect. They’re dumpster fire misinformation machines with no redeeming qualities. Of course it’s not Skynet. Skynet was intelligent. This isn’t within 100 orders of magnitude of intelligence.

                Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success. Willingness to lose billions burning energy to degrade every single search made is not an indication that it’s not a nightmare for the environment (again, for literally no purpose because every single search with an LLM is worse than without it).

                • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No, a summary is just a condensed version of some larger work. If the larger work contains bullshit then so can the summary, that doesn’t stop it from being a summary. As you say, a summary accurately portrays the substance of that content. In this case there was content that said Alpha Centauri was 13 km from Earth, so the summary said that too.

                  This is really not complicated.

                  Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success.

                  If you think it has no possibility of success, sit back and relax as AI goes away.