[friend_and_foe]

You're missing the point. If we want to know something, we won't even have to google it; we will just ask an LLM. There will be no market for websites full of it because we can just directly ask it to answer our questions.

The only "if" to all this is if we will destroy the LLMs by feeding them their own diarrhea. I expect a sort of natural selection here to play out, especially in the open source space. Ones that are trained on LLM generated blogspam will probably, I expect, get outperformed by ones that are trained on genuine information, or at the very least ones made using new techniques that adequately filter noise.

[mcphage]

> If we want to know something, we won't even have to google it; we will just ask an LLM. There will be no market for websites full of it because we can just directly ask it to answer our questions.

How will it learn anything new?

[jmye]

> Ones that are trained on LLM generated blogspam will probably, I expect, get outperformed by ones that are trained on genuine information, or at the very least ones made using new techniques that adequately filter noise.

Yes, humans are notorious for only seeking out high quality, accurate data, especially when it conflicts with our priors.

To say nothing of our ability to assess the accuracy or truthiness of information in the first place (look at how many people take, on faith, that Chat GPT isn’t wrong as often as it is right).

[mrguyorama]

But there's still no way to get an LLM to only output "fact", because that's not a property of language.

[ben_w]

That's also true of a web search engine; but an LLM can (in principle, not saying it's there yet) be able to spot inconsistencies in the source data, to notice disagreement.