[shaky-carrousel]

> Let's take a simple example: when an LLM tells us that the sun rises in the east, it's not because it truly understands astronomy or the solar system. Rather, it has seen the phrase "sun rises in the east" repeated so many times in its training data that this becomes the highest probability answer.

So, if a person answers me that the sun rises in the east, I should assume they must not be a flat earther, right? Because in order to say that the sun rises in the east one must truly understand astronomy or the solar system. Not that people say it because they have been told so many times, no. That's something only LLM do.

[dsizzle]

I just asked Claude what would happen if the Earth rotated in the opposite direction, and it correctly told me the sun would rise in the West, which is indistinguishable from an answer by someone who understands the way the Universe works.

I don't understand why this article is #1 currently

[kbenson]

Different people have different levels of understanding. If the person you ask is an astrophysicist, their answer will be grounded in a lot more understanding than if you ask a small child.

An LLM is like a congress of all the children voting on the answers they've heard their parents talk about in passing to other adults, which they sometimes miss the context of so misunderstand.

Useful for getting information, but not nearly as useful as asking someone with grounded domain knowledge, for multiple reasons. Depending on the topic, someone with domain knowledge can be easier or harder to find, which is why LLMs are more or less useful depending on the domain, and how important it is they are correct and not just on the right ballpark.