[pjkundert]

Learning to code with an AI assistant is pretty much the ideal way to learn and understand the profound limitations of LLM based AIs.

After just a few minutes, the outputs presented by your AI in a highly confident manner will be shown to be … suspect, or completely wrong.

It quickly casts a shadow over everything else it confidently spews forth as “truth”.

[13years]

This is an important point I've also made.

"How can we reasonably verify the output and know it is correct? At least when using AI to create code, we can easily test the code to see if it performs according to the desired behavior. However, that is no easy task for most general information. It is unclear at this point how difficult it will be to improve AI in this regard."

from - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

[pjkundert]

This is really one of the great things about Twitter, etc.

Follow a few people who are proven (by their predictive accuracy) to be experts in their fields.

Their comments on the quality of claims in their field of expertise is much more valuable than the reports being made by "experts" presented on corporate media, or by LLMs.

[13years]

Agreed. Essentially decentralized access to information via Twitter.

AI is going to bring about the new era of great centralization. One tool to rule them all. Many concerning issues.

[pjkundert]

I don't think so...

The general populace will use the crippled AIs presented by mainstream corporations and governments.

Anyone who cares about their information will use un-crippled AIs operating without guardrails, which are always available to monitor what they read and hear, and comment on it.

Sort of like when my relatives call me to analyze a potential Phishing email -- I don't do anything difficult; view the raw mail; check the DKIM signing and SPF validity, look at the full URLs of originating servers vs. the claimed From: and the document contents' claimed source, verify all transited MTAs, check the contents for malicious looking payloads, etc.

Any half-decently trained LLM can do all of this, instantly and trivially, and lay out the evidence in an understandable fashion for a non-technical user.

Imagine that, but amplified by an LLM trained to recognize and categorize arguments in a variety of technical fields. Not to tell you what to believe -- but to categorize the claims by its heritage vs. the main groupings of theories in that field, and then give a set of links to highly rated "for" and "against" arguments.

I don't need some LLM trained by a partisan, with guard-rails set up by some corporation's legal and HR departments. I don't think most people will stand for that, when we have laptops that can already run reasonably capable LLMs w/ training on focussed datasets!

[13years]

I hope that is the case, but I am doubtful of the overall success. My reasoning being looking at the lack of success of decentralized competition of big tech for search and social media. Other than crypto currency, these other web3 attempts just haven't been largely successful.

Mostly due to the fact the most people will opt for features and convenience over privacy and liberty. The people using Brave, Minds etc will likely use non gated AI, but I suspect the most everyone else will not. Hope I'm wrong.