Comment on AI's Future Hangs in the Balance With California Law
Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 4 months agoFor anything where you would ever expect a predictable, useful outcome to an arbitrary input. There is no possible path to LLMs ever doing anything close to that.
LLMs aren’t driving cars. LLMs aren’t doing financial modeling. Those are entirely different tools with heavily hand crafted models to specific applications.
Anyone using an LLM to provide therapy should get multiple life sentences in prison regardless of outcomes. There is no possible way to LLMs ever being actually useful for therapy. It’s just a random text generator that’s tuned well enough to sound good. It has no substance and the underlying tech cannot possibly develop substance.
5C5C5C@programming.dev 4 months ago
I can’t tell if you’re suggesting that foundation models (which is the underpinning technology of LLMs) aren’t being used for the things that I said they’re being used for, but I can assure you they are, either in commercial R&D or in live commercial pictures l products.
The fact that they shouldn’t be used for these things is something we can certainly agree on, but the fact remains that they are.
Sources:
Wayve is using foundation models for driving, and I am under the impression that their neutral net extends all the way from sensor input to motor control: wayve.ai/thinking/introducing-gaia1/
Research recommending the use of LLMs for giving financial advice: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=48500…
LLMs for therapy: blog.langchain.dev/mental-health-therapy-as-an-ll…
So this all kinds of goes back to my point that some form of accountability is needed for how these tools get used. I haven’t examined the specific legislation proposal to give any firm opinion on it, but I think it’s a good thing that the conversation is happening in a serious way.