[nimski]

I appreciate the example, but here's where I think it differs as an analogy of what LLMs do:

A summary doesn't have infinite or variable depth. If you read the summary of a non-fiction (I'll limit my argument to that, as another poster pointed out) book, and either aren't convinced, or want to learn more about the matter, you'd have to purchase the book.

An LLM that has ben trained on the book, if somehow designed not to hallucinate, would be able to answer any question you have about the book at any depth, seamlessly blending in material from other books to answer a question or explain a concept. That seems like an entirely better experience than reading the book from start-to-finish. I don't see how the original can compete.

[__loam]

LLMs will never be able to not hallucinate. Also, it's insane to me that people like you would prefer to ask a chatbot about a book rather than read the book itself. Part of the value of books is the voice of an author.

[passion__desire]

This is a very basic and naive, poor scenario. Words are in public domain. But somehow their arrangements makes all the difference. Can AI just solve this "arrangement" problem better than humans do. Arrangements can be liked to series of moves in chess and AlphaGo solves for this through selfplay given only the rules.

[chrisdbanks]

Assuming you know the right questions to ask. Most people don't know what they don't know. I've tried this. I'd prefer to pay a small amount to read the book.

[nimski]

Is that really that much of a barrier? Off the top of my head: you could start with a prompt like "write a summary of book XYZ, followed by a summary of each chapter". Then dive deeper into each one from there using the same prompt recursively, etc.

[bugglebeetle]

Yes, it’s a tremendous barrier, which is why academic fields tend to have introductions or surveys of the domain, stepwise instruction, with more in-depth or specialist knowledge being premised on having this understanding. I feel like this should be obvious to everyone? Did your education not follow such a progression?

[WalterBright]

Summaries are fair use.

[hnfong]

> if somehow designed not to hallucinate

We know this isn't possible at the moment. Are we going to legislate for something that is not yet technologically possible? Should judges decide cases because maybe ML researchers will figure out how to reliably stop models from hallucinating?