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?
If he waits a few more days after that, hopefully Netanyahu won't be free.
What I posted was correct.
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.
Now if only British Columbia hadn't put the conservatives in power there.
I'm considering moving much of my 401K to the emerging markets equity fund. Not much exposure to AI there.
I'm... not? I don't touch the stuff.
You're right, it responds with a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too.
Gotta be honest, I've reached the point where I no longer think there are any good and ethical uses for LLMs. They're built on gargantuan theft, they hurt people's minds, they're addictive, and they make everything they touch worse.
Burn the companies that make them to the ground and salt the earth.
That would almost be appropriate, except they're not even participating. They're just prompting LLMs to do the participating for them.
Not nearly as absurd as the illegality in the first place.