I think we have a couple of years of "being good at talking to the LLM about your field of expertise" being a useful human skill, until that too gets washed away
At the end of the day, even if they are some insane oracle (pun intended), they're still bounded by training data and how it relates to the real world. Even if they're a near perfect tool, we are still the interface between them and our lived experience. If that stops being the case then why do we care about the output?
This assumes it doesn't graduate to just killing all of us and doing it's own thing, but within this paradigm it doesn't really have goals.
>Even if they're a near perfect tool, we are still the interface between them and our lived experience.
Until they are embedded into automatons that can interact with the world.
(To be clear, I'm both on board with this, and I think it's the natural progression. Currently they are bounded by their training set, but interaction with the world is the imperative for theory -> test -> analysis -> update that is essential for growth and creativity.)
Yes, but the point being for the LLM to be useful to us it has to do something relevant for us and we have to define what is relevant. Even if you view them as fully human level or beyond (in terms of agency) there's still some purpose that we have to help provide them with.
To put it differently, if you have some idealized model in front of you that can do anything a team of humans can do, what do you say to it? It's still just a model that takes an input and provides an output.
I don't understand. You will ask it for something you want, and instead of needing to pay a the team of people with expertise, it will just do it for you.
Someone will still need to ask for something (or maybe it will just run autonomously making things it thinks we'll like) but it won't require any expertise in the field.
I can’t help but believe that reality will keep the interactions more useful when coming from a person with expertise in the field, e
At least for technical questions.
For things like sickness, old age and death, generally the lacks are not knowledge but the consistent will of the group. Like global warming, there is no real profound knowledge gap except how to get everyone to agree to mitigating the carbon burn. Perhaps it is likely LLMs would be able to persuade the group to stop burning the carbon before it’s [more] uncomfortable, but the small group of people committed to accelerating the carbon burn can also pay for LLM persuasiveness.
Global Warming does have a knowledge gap of sorts. Yes there is a viable solution to Global Warming, drastically cut back carbon and methane emissions. Where the knowledge gap is: drastically cut back on carbon and methane emissions, whilst maintaining or even improving quality of life in developed countries, having no economic issues, maintain industry, and keep developing countries developing. That is the hard part.
Of course they can't just talk to themselves and improve the knowledge of the world. They are just stochastics parrots that give you an average answer.
LLMs giving you something novel would be like if you let a model play chess against itself and become the best player in the world this way. Totally impossible.
At the end of the day, even if they are some insane oracle (pun intended), they're still bounded by training data and how it relates to the real world. Even if they're a near perfect tool, we are still the interface between them and our lived experience. If that stops being the case then why do we care about the output?
This assumes it doesn't graduate to just killing all of us and doing it's own thing, but within this paradigm it doesn't really have goals.