Comment on ‘We didn’t vote for ChatGPT’: Swedish Prime Minister under fire for using AI
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoIt’s a new technology barely out of infancy. Of course it’s unreliable and niche. You could say the same thing about any technological advance in history.
You could say that. But you could also say that none of these other technological advances got pushed through this badly while being obviously not ready for widespread use.
And also, can you really say that though? Most other technological advances had a pretty clear distinction from the older way of doing things.
But you could also say that none of these other technological advances got pushed through this badly while being obviously not ready for widespread use.
I can certainly agree with you that most current advertised use cases of LLMs are total bullshit, yes.
pycorax@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The very nature of how it functions is unreliable. It’s a statistical probabilistic model. It’s great for what it was designed to do but imagining that it has any way of rationalising data is purely that, just imagination. Even if let’s say we accept that it makes an error rate at the same rate as humans do (if it can even identify an error reliably), there’s no accountability in place that ensures that it would check the correctness like a human would.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I understand perfectly how LLMs work, and I made no claims about what they can do. Taking them on their own capabilities, not what some lying-through-their-teeth marketer said, is there a reason to say they ‘shouldn’t exist’?
Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 days ago
OP didn’t phrase it as “should they exist” but as “do we need them to exist”.
And personally i think not, we don’t need them. In text generation they are good… inspiration? They are more of an inspiration killer imo.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
We don’t NEED any particular technology to exist. That’s a weird distinction to make.
Different minds work differently.