I think it’s a bit disturbing that the author gets an answer that is entirely made up from the model, even goes so far as to publish it in an article, but still says it’s all so great.
It's telling that even an obviously sophisticated and careful user of these tools published the output of the model as fact without checking it and even used it as one of the central pillars of his argument. I find this happening all the time now. People that should know better use LLM output without validating it.
I fear for the whole concept of factuality in this brave new world.
That's "disturbing"? I've used imperfect tools before and still thought they were great. It's mildly interesting someone's mental state would be so affected by that.
It’s not that different than arguing against someone by quoting the experts either.
They could be wrong, you could be full of shit and cute just the experts who agree with you. The other side needs to verify what you are saying. With LLMs that’s just easier to accept I think.
Interestingly enough the model produced what he wanted - a useful anecdote to introduce the concept in his blog. The made up nature of the anecdote did not diminish that point.
I get the desire for the models to act like objective search engines at all times but it’s weird to undervalue the creative… generative I suppose, outputs.
The point of an anecdote is to provide some measure of substantiation for a claim - that the claim is possible/not possible.
If the anecdote is non-existent, then it would be a sign that the concept failed such a meager bar. Worse, the anecdote leverages the brand strength of Time magazine to make its point, using its credibility to back up the claim.
Are we in a phase where accuracy is irrelevant and style is all?
I fear for the whole concept of factuality in this brave new world.