Technology

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone -3 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Then how do you know it only responds with "a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too" ?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Because I'm capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I'm a software developer and it impacts my career. I don't have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone -8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

so you knew what you posted was wrong and posted it anyway just to virtue signal?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

What I posted was correct.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

it wasn’t but we’ll move on

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Let's not. I'd like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as "a bunch of pablum [which means 'trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech'] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]"

So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it's wrong, or studies that show they're trained for sycophancy?