I mean yeah, but they specifically mentioned its amazing performance in tasks requiring reasoning

And on top of that, the people who don’t know things very well generated lots of the material the LLMs were trained on in the first place.

Can’t really blame the models for realizing much of human knowledge is bullshit and acting accordingly.

The problem is that we've had a culture of people who don't know things very well control the purse strings relevant to those things.

I mean that has been the case for a long time, AI may enhance the effect of it, but human stupidity is nothing new.

So we have executives who don't know their work or customers at all and just try to bullshit while their people frantically try to repair the damage the executive does to preserve their jobs. Then they see bullshit generating platforms and see a kindred spirit, and set a goal of replacing those dumb employees with a more "executive" like entity that also can generate reports and code directly. No talking back, no explaining that the request needs clarification, that the data doesn't support their decision, just a "yes, and..." result agreeing with whatever dumbass request they thought would be correct and simple.

Once again, yes men have also been a historic phenomenon, and yes AI might speed this up, but it is nothing new per se. 

Ai is a tool, not a perfect one, heck most of the time, barely functional, but it is a tool and in order to use it, you need to understand what it can do, and what it can't do. 

I think if you're aware of the environmental impact, learn how to use it responsibly and avoid many of it pitfalls, together with a critical mindset, it can be usable for some cases. 

But that's wrong. It's not trained on correct answers. It's trained on whatever happens to be out there in the world.

It's mathematical approximations of words that are likely to be found near that question.

Depending on the material, the LLM can be faster. I have used an LLM to extract viable search terms to then go and read the material myself.

I never trust the summary, but it frequently gives me clues as to what keywords could take me to the right area of a source material. Internet articles that stretch brief content into tedious mess, documentation that is 99% something I already know, but I need something buried in the 1%.

Was searching for a certain type of utility and traditional Internet searches were flooded with shitware that wasn't meeting the criteria I wanted, LLM successfully zeroed in on just the perfect GitHub project.

Then as a reminder to never trust the results, I queried how to make it do a certain thing and it mentioned a command option that seemed like a dumb name that was opposite of what I asked for if it did work and not only would it have been opposite, no such option existed.

Lol. Your advice: learn to read, noob

My work is technically dense and I read all day. It's sometimes nice when I'm mentally exhausted to see if it's worth the effort to dig deeper in a 10 second upload. That's all I'm getting at.