150
Today's Large Language Models are Essentially BS Machines (quandyfactory.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

That same critique should apply to the LLM as well.

No, it shouldn't. Instead, you should compare it to the alternatives you have on hand.

The fact is,

  • Using LLM was a better experience for me then reading a textbook.
  • And it was also a better experience for me then watching recorded video lectures.

So, if I have to learn something, I have enough background to spot hallucinations, and I don't have a teacher (having graduated college, that's always true), I would consider using it, because it's better then the alternatives.

I just would never fully trust knowledge I gained from an LLM

There are plenty of cases where you shouldn't fully trust knowledge you gained from a human, too.

And there are, actually, cases where you can trust the knowledge gained from an LLM. Not because it sounds confident, but because you know how it behaves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Obviously you should do what you think is right, so I mean, I'm not telling you you're living wrong. Do what you want.

    The reason to not trust a human is different from the reasons not to trust an LLM. An LLM is not revealing to you knowledge it understands. Or even knowledge it doesn't understand. It's literally completing sentences based on word likelihood. It doesn't understand any of what it's saying, and none of it is rooted in any knowledge of the subject of any kind.

    I find that concerning in terms of learning from it. But if it worked for you, then go for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent