[aeturnum]

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.

[nzach]

>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.

[aeturnum]

Then I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the problem is unsolvable and people should just accept that?

[nzach]

My point is that LMM is a tool, and we should never attribute any sort of blame to our tools. The blame should always be with the humans.

[Retric]

It’s fine to blame a car’s heater when the design is so poor it can’t keep the cabin warm when it’s only 0C outside.

Thus being a spectacularly bad tool is itself a cause to assign blame.