Stuff like this troubles me. I am in defense tech working with LLMs and I am here to tell you the guards and fences are down at the chow truck while commoners are using LLMs.
I think it means people in the military and contractors are already using openai and other tools and nobody is able to stop them, even if it leaks secrets.
I hate to be that guy, but here's what ChatGPT says:
This expression uses metaphorical language to describe a situation where traditional barriers, hierarchies, or protections have been removed, allowing broader access or disrupting the status quo. Here's a breakdown:
1. "Guards and fences are down" - This implies that the usual controls, restrictions, or gatekeepers are no longer in place.
2. "At the chow truck" - The chow truck symbolizes something previously exclusive or regulated, like access to resources, opportunities, or knowledge.
3. "While commoners are using LLMs" - Refers to everyday people (as opposed to elites or specialists) now having access to advanced technology, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), like AI tools for generating text.
Together, the expression likely means that AI-powered tools have democratized access to knowledge and creativity, breaking down barriers that once limited these capabilities to experts, institutions, or privileged individuals. It highlights a significant shift where advanced tools are now accessible to "commoners," disrupting traditional power dynamics.
I read this and I still am uncertain about what it means. I believe ChatGPT also failed to understand this, it differs from my interpretation: GGP is worried that while people access "aligned" models military deployment don't have the guardrails.
Basically he’s worried about gen pop having access to LLMs thinking only govts should have access to the technology for some strange reason. Probably because he works in defence contracting so he benefits directly from having that stance.
The real revolution will come (hopefully) when voters start using LLMs to figure out which of their representatives actually vote for policies that improve their life.
I don't really understand why people bash so hard on LLMs. In some cases it is a spectacularly bad tool, I get that. But it is only a tool.
Imagine if you have a judge giving out sentences based on astrology books. I don't think anyone would argue the problem would be resolved by banning astrology books from our libraries.
Reminds me of a quote that says that science progresses one scientist's funeral at a time as push back against new ideas often comes from older scientists regardless of the empirical merits of the idea.
I believe the main issue in regard to LLMs is that there is a real chance of the prevalence and ease of use of LLMs to erode critical thinking skills. Regardless of boilerplate warnings to "check the validity of answers" coming from the LLM, plenty of people in society outside of this tech savvy audience wouldn't even know where to begin. There was a recent Big Think article on this: https://bigthink.com/thinking/artificial-intelligence-critic....
To be fair, I do think there are plenty of uses for LLMs, but with adoption skyrocketing there really are no guardrails against misuse.
I don't really believe that LLMs will make us dumber. It only changes what we decide to put our attention. It's the same that happened with Google, it changed our relationship with information. Even though it has several shortcomings the ability of just look things up instead of having to hold everything in our heads was a net positive for society.
And I suspect the same will happen for LLMs, in the end we will just start thinking in "another level of abstraction". We are still in the early days and still have a lot to learn about how to properly use this new toll but I think LLMs are a positive change for society.
Sure, that judge is a problem, but I think your metaphor is a bit mal-formed.
In your example you should probably drop the judge, but you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance. That's what people are annoyed about re:LLMs. People keep insisting they are a legit source in different situations.
You wouldn't ban them overall, but you do want some kind of society-level taboo against relying on them. You can't just deal with it on the level of people who get fooled into using them.
>you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance
My example was absurd on purpose, I didn't want to bring an example where people could respond with "well, actually..."
But in the real world that is rarely the case, imagine substituting "astrology book" for "Bible/Quran/..." Would that be considered a legitimate source of sentence guidance? I'm sure people would spend years arguing about that...
As a society we need to understand that LLM hallucination is no different than a bloom filter giving you a false-positive.
That's all well and good except that we look out and see all of the actively bad uses being hyped as the way of the future, at untold expense in both dollars and energy. The LLM is just a model that is what it is, bashing it doesn't make sense. People are bashing how it is used, both currently and in prospect.
I've read this over and over and have no idea what this means.