We don't train then on ceo actions. We train them to run a company for the betterment of society, it's people, the employees and its survival.

They can't "figure out" the hallucination thing because literally everything that comes out of an LLMbecile is hallucination. It's just that sometimes (and not as many times as people seem to think!) the hallucination happens to match something in reality.

So why do so many people believe that LLMs "know" things and aren't constantly hallucinating? We're getting our cognition hacked.

See, we have no way to directly detect intelligence in other beings. What we have are proxies that have, over millions of years of evolution, proved "good enough" a substitute for the actual measurement to be usable as that measurement. And one of the biggest pieces of proxied intellectual detection we have is ... fluency. (You know all those bigoted "Polish jokes" or, from my childhood, "Ukrainian jokes", or such over the years? Yep. Entire ethnic groups were painted with a broad brush as being "stupid" because they couldn't speak English well. Thank you proxied intellect measurement!)

LLMs are something unprecedented in the entire history of life on this planet: fluency paired with zero intellect. But we've evolved to use fluency as a very strong proxy measure of intellect. LLMs, with their confident wording and their almost supernatural fluency fool us into thinking they're, well, thinking. And because we assume that they're smart, we overlook their errors—often helping them along and prompting them down the right path when they hallucinate incorrectly, but close to correct—and when we give them the answer and they state it with fluency and confidence, we're amazed at how smart they are!

But the truth is that they cannot ever figure out the hallucination thing. It would take a completely different technology from LLMs to solve that problem. LLMs are a dead end for genuine machine intellect.

Also the intern can learn or be reprimanded. With the LLM it'll just go out of context and you have to keep repeating yourself.

Those companies fired the workers and replaced them with AI already, so the benefit they bring to the broader economy is far smaller (might even be negative by now) and them dissapearing is far less likely to cause "economic fallout".

Even though that's what Neoliberal politicians have preached to us for decades now, companies aren't inherently "good for the Economy" - they might, but then again they might not.

Plenty of companies out there add up to a negative to the Economy:

• Maybe because they have huge Negative Externalities (i.e. for example, emitting lots of Pollution)
• Maybe because they abuse dominant positions in Markets due to Barriers to Entry in a way that makes things actually worse for most people (reference: enshittification)
• Maybe because they're mostly extracting wealth from the broader Economy through rentseeking rather than producing wealth (reference: most realestate investors)
• Maybe because they're actually extrating more from the Economy than they put back in it (for example companies getting billions in subsidies to create literally a handful of jobs, or companies employing people with such low salaries that it's only possible because said people also receive Social Security support)
• Maybe because almost all the wealth they produce does not end up in that Economy (for example, they're using Tax Havens to avoid taxes and their owners pay tax abroad or even don't pay any tax at all)

Companies aren't there to benefit the Economy in any way form or shape, they're there to benefit their owners. Some companies might happen to benefit the Economy, often because they have no other option (for example, they're forced to employ people in order to actually operate and make money for the company owners, thus indirectly help the Economy) but almost invariably every single thing that helps the Economy is for a company "losing money" which would go to the company owners instead so they generally fight like crazy to actually reduce it: they try to spend less from suppliers, pay less to workers, pay less or no tax at all.

Helping the Economy almost always runs counter the one true goal for the existence of a company - maximizing shareholder profits.

Further, when a company dissapears it doesn't mean that the Market need that they're serving dissapears with them: in almost all the cases the need is still there after they've collapsed (unless they collapsed because the need itself doesn't exist anymore) so existing companies grow or new companies pop-up to serve it.

It seems to me that companies that have replaced workers with AI are by far the most likely to by now not actually be helping the Economy, not even indirectly, and that their dissapearance might actually improve the Economy if only because their share of the Market might be taken over by companies with better far better and less wasteful management (and hence more efficient) and which employ more people, and hence which bring more benefits to the broader Economy.

Capitalism VS Capitalism

Who's gonna win? Who knows!

Who's gonna ultimately lose? Well, who gives a fuck, as long as they winnnn!

When my last employer opened up a publicly available chatbot they asked us not to test it because of how much it costs. It was a sales bot, we had recently had the company decimated by redundancies.

A common act of protest was to abuse the public chatbot from a non work device.