[yieldcrv]

If LLMs of today's quality were what was initially introduced, nobody would even know what your rebuttals are even about.

So "risk of hallucination" as a rebuttal to anybody admitting to relying on AI is just not insightful. like, yeah ok we all heard of that and aren't changing our habits at all. Most of our teachers and books said objectively incorrect things too, and we are all carrying factually questionable knowledge we are completely blind to. Which makes LLMs "good enough" at the same standard as anything else.

Don't let it cite case law? Most things don't need this stringent level of review

[kristofferR]

Agree, "hallucination" as an argument to not use LLMs for curiosity and other non-important situations is starting to seem more and more like tech luddism, similar to the people who told you to not read Wikipedia 5+ years after the rest of us realized it is a really useful resource despite occasional inaccuracies.

[majormajor]

Fun thing about wikipedia is that if one person notices, they can correct it. [And someone's gonna bring up edit wars and blah blah blah disputed topics, but let's just focus on straightforward factual stuff here.]

Meanwhile in LLM-land, if an expert five thousand miles a way asked the same question you did last month, and noticed an error... it ain't getting fixed. LLMs get RL'd into things that look plausible for out-of-distribution questions. Not things that are correct. Looking plausible but non-factual is in some ways more insidious than a stupid-looking hallucination.

[johnnyanmac]

> to not use LLMs for curiosity and other non-important situations is starting to seem more and more like tech luddism

We're on a topic talking about using an LLM to study. I don't particularly care if someone wants an AI boyfriend to whisper sweet nothings into their ear. I do care when people will claim to have AI doctors and lawyers.