Real researchers make up studies to cite in their reports? Real lawyers and judges cite fake cases as precedents in legal preceding? Real doctors base treatment plans on white papers they completely fabricated in their heads? Yeah I don’t think so, buddy.
I think they’re saying that the kind of people who take LLM generated content as fact are the kind of people who don’t know how to look up information in the first place. Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Of course LLMs make stuff up, they are machines that make stuff up.
Sort of an aside, but doctors, lawyers, judges and researchers make shit up all the time. A professional designation doesn’t make someone infallible or even smart. People should question everything they read, regardless of the source.
Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Except we give it the glorifying title “AI”. It’s supposed to be far better than a search engine, otherwise why not stick with a search engine (that uses a tiny fraction of the power)?
I don’t know what point you’re arguing. I didn’t call it AI and even if I did, I don’t know any definition of AI that includes infallibility. I didn’t claim it’s better than a search engine, either. Even if I did, “Better” does not equal “Always correct.”
Real researchers make up studies to cite in their reports? Real lawyers and judges cite fake cases as precedents in legal preceding? Real doctors base treatment plans on white papers they completely fabricated in their heads? Yeah I don’t think so, buddy.
But but but . . . !!!
AI!!
I think they’re saying that the kind of people who take LLM generated content as fact are the kind of people who don’t know how to look up information in the first place. Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Of course LLMs make stuff up, they are machines that make stuff up.
Sort of an aside, but doctors, lawyers, judges and researchers make shit up all the time. A professional designation doesn’t make someone infallible or even smart. People should question everything they read, regardless of the source.
Except we give it the glorifying title “AI”. It’s supposed to be far better than a search engine, otherwise why not stick with a search engine (that uses a tiny fraction of the power)?
I don’t know what point you’re arguing. I didn’t call it AI and even if I did, I don’t know any definition of AI that includes infallibility. I didn’t claim it’s better than a search engine, either. Even if I did, “Better” does not equal “Always correct.”