[dgxyz]

I agree.

I'm sure i'll piss off a lot of people with this one but I don't care any more. I'm calling it what it is.

LLMs empower those without the domain knowledge or experience to identify if the output actually solves the problem. I have seen multiple colleagues deliver a lot of stuff that looks fancy but doesn't actually solve the prescribed problem at all. It's mostly just furniture around the problem. And the retort when I have to evaluate what they have done is "but it's so powerful". I stopped listening. It's a pure faith argument without any critical reasoning. It's the new "but it's got electrolytes!".

The second major problem is corrupting reasoning outright. I see people approaching LLMs as an exploratory process and let the LLM guide the reasoning. That doesn't really work. If you have a defined problem, it is very difficult to keep an LLM inside the rails. I believe that a lot of "success" with LLMs is because the users have little interest in purity or the problem they are supposed to be solving and are quite happy to deliver anything if it is demonstrable to someone else. That would suggest they are doing it to be conspicuous.

So we have a unique combination of self-imposed intellectual dishonesty, mixed with irrational faith which is ultimately self-aggrandizing. Just what society needs in difficult times: more of that! :(

[mentalgear]

> stuff that looks fancy but doesn't actually solve the prescribed problem at all."

Exactly - we are in the age of "AI-posers".