[walletdrainer]

If someone believes a hammer when it tells them such things, they should probably have some sort of a caretaker assigned to help them through life.

[mvid]

If hammer companies were suddenly the most valuable international companies, and spent millions on ad campaigns and lobbying about trusting the hammer interface, then you can assume a large amount of people might trust the hammer interface

[leidenfrost]

Still, it's a tool.

Even if your tool learns to talk and to make decisions, it's still a tool, not a person. You're the person and the one responsible for the decisions you make based on your tools.

Going back from the analogy, the problem is that we conflated software <engineers> with "coders". A lot of people thought their job was to create code, we gave them a tool to generate a lot of code fast, and they truly think that "more code" = "more good"

[kiba]

A hammer usually doesn't have the power to persuade people.

[TheScaryOne]

> it's still a tool, not a person.

Tell that to the CEO's who have replaced all of their yes-men with yes-chatbots.

[walletdrainer]

Where are the ad campaigns telling me to trust LLMs?

I don’t use an adblocker, do read traditional dead tree newspapers and do get exposed to satellite tv channels.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone anywhere telling me how reliable LLMs are.

Pretty sure this tech sells itself to consumers, enterprise sales are what they’ve always been.

[alnwlsn]

Literally saw a video ad the other day which went like "I've always been cautious using Google's AI because it sometimes gets things wrong, but this time, it got it right!"

[card_zero]

So now you're pivoting away from the caretaker proposal? I thought it had potential but I don't know how you'd fund it.

[walletdrainer]

> I thought it had potential but I don't know how you'd fund it.

The same way we fund other social services here in Europe. If an individual is incapable of caring for themselves, the state is expected to care for them.