• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 month ago

    Summaries distinguish substance from nonsense. It cannot be described as a summary of a piece of content if it does not accurately portray the substance of that content.

    LLMs aren’t imperfect. They’re dumpster fire misinformation machines with no redeeming qualities. Of course it’s not Skynet. Skynet was intelligent. This isn’t within 100 orders of magnitude of intelligence.

    Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success. Willingness to lose billions burning energy to degrade every single search made is not an indication that it’s not a nightmare for the environment (again, for literally no purpose because every single search with an LLM is worse than without it).

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      No, a summary is just a condensed version of some larger work. If the larger work contains bullshit then so can the summary, that doesn’t stop it from being a summary. As you say, a summary accurately portrays the substance of that content. In this case there was content that said Alpha Centauri was 13 km from Earth, so the summary said that too.

      This is really not complicated.

      Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success.

      If you think it has no possibility of success, sit back and relax as AI goes away.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        If you think it has no possibility of success, sit back and relax as AI goes away.

        Yep. This is exactly it, and this is what people don’t seem to understand. AI is not going away, because it is actually useful, it has actual uses and people are actively using it. It’s not entirely fluff based pointless technology like blockchain etc, it is actually useful and real-world people use AI/LLMs.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is just not true.

      Just because you don’t like LLMs doesn’t mean that they have no purpose. If they were really entirely useless and served no purpose and never did anything, they would not be the talk of the town and OpenAI would not be a multi-billion dollar company. If they were useless, nobody would use them, but people absolutely do use them.

      I literally use ChatGPT daily to automate writing code for me and it honestly does a good job. I literally used it to write an entire Laravel project called ArigatouAnimeTracker, over 600 commits including documentation all written using ChatGPT, and tbh my project is awesome. It easily would have taken me 5x as long to write it without ChatGPT and tbh it might not have ended up existing without ChatGPT because of how long it would have taken to write without LLMs doing the heavy lifting.

      Sure, you have to verify the output, but you know what? That’s going to be the case for any code that is written regardless, code review is essential and completely normal and existed long before LLMs did. That doesn’t mean that LLMs don’t have a purpose, or that nobody actually uses them. People do use them, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry for a reason and people are going to continue to use them, even if you say they have no redeeming qualities. There are definitely ethical concerns about LLMs, but to say they have no redeeming qualities is just not correct.

      Regardless, anything I say about AI/LLMs that isn’t that it’s terrible and useless and nobody should/would ever use it is going to be met with criticism.