Thread

1. probably_wrong · 1789742397 · focus · HN ↗

   First, to get it out of the way: I'm seeing comments here that clearly haven't read the article. I encourage you all to do that.

   I feel the article gets it right when suggesting it's the amount of (not always accurate!) data they can throw at you. In an honest discussion there's an assumption that the other person won't straight up lie to me so if someone shows me ten examples for why my argument is wrong I may be inclined to believe them. But if half of those examples are made up, well, that's a different story.

   I still think of the commenter here who said "LLMs are a DDOS on free resources" and I feel the comparison works here. If police officers can overwhelm innocent people into confessing, then so can an LLM that "can't be bargained with, can't be reasoned with, doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are"... convinced.

   1. matthewdgreen · 1789742590 · focus · HN ↗

      One of the depressing things about this is that they’ll also confidently repeat a consensus that’s in their training. This is particularly obvious when there’s been a new event just past their training cutoff, and they confidently tell you that can’t be true.

      1. pixl97 · 1789743141 · focus · HN ↗

         I mean, this is true of any kind of model that is not continuous learning. This is also true of people when the change in information conflicts with a deeply held belief of theirs.
      2. nomel · 1789785898 · focus · HN ↗

         I was slightly accelerationist until I got into an "argument" with Gemini! The aggressive gaslighting and "lies" that it tries to use genuinely makes me worry about the future with AI.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.