|
Top-level
@donnodubus fair question. My feeling is that over time, we graduate to authority figures. If you want legal advice, you don't try and determine which statutes to read, you ask someone who's synthesized and absorbed them and can hopefully regurgitate relevant parts, ideally with interpretation along the way. If I had a chef on hand, I'd probably ask about hazelnut roasting! Although current LLMs are less than reliable, and there's a moral (and legal?) question around their training, of course 4 comments
@donnodubus for sure, and the reference source materials are more authoritative. However, consider the utility of an LLM that's "right" most of the time. If it can tell me - more quickly and mostly accurately - how to roast hazelnuts, the average internet user will prefer that experience to Googling/DDGing/etc which today is a toxic experience due to webspam etc. It's utility over ethics; maybe Napster all over again? And we know what "won" for years until iTunes and Spotify won. For a while.  @andrewgretton well the webspam problem is driven by AI, so that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Convenient that these new capital ventures are being sold as the solution to the problem they made... @donnodubus very good point. Albeit depressing 😬 There's probably a good amount of money in a genuinely useful and entirely new search engine these days. I'm not sure Kagi and co are it, though, despite their innovative approaches. |
Gregory's Server
@andrewgretton If you consider how knowledge and truth are actually arrived at, it's quite clear that LLMs are fundamentally incapable of achieving that kind of intelligence. No matter how advanced they get.
The best LLMs are simply better at defuzzing the source materials they've fuzzed. Which leaves the obvious observation that they're roundabout serving up the content they've stolen. Content we could just read directly...