“just as trustworthy as human authors” - Ok so you have no idea how these chatbots work do you?
Oh I do not, but the choice is: a human who might understand what happens vs a probabilistic model that is unable to understand ANYTHING
probabilistic model that is unable to understand ANYTHING
You’re the one who doesn’t understand how these things work.
I understand they are just fancy text prediction algorithms, which is probably justa as much as you do (if you are a machine learning expert, I do apologise). Still, the good ones that get their data from the internet rarely make mistakes.
I’m not an ML expert but we’ve been using them for a while in neurosciences (software dev in bioinformatics). They are impressive, but have no semantics, no logics. It’s just a fancy mirror. That’s why, for example, world of warcraft player have been able to trick those bots into making an article about a feature that doesn’t exist.
Do you really want to lose your time reading a blob of data with no coherency?
Do you really want to lose your time reading a blob of data with no coherency?
We are both on the internet, lol. And I mean it. LLMs are slightly worse than the CEO-optimized clickbaity word salad you get in most articles. Before you’ve found out how\where to search for direct and correct answers, it would be just the same or maybe worse. <– I found this skill a bit fascinating, that we learn to read patterns and red flags without even opening a page. I doubt it’s possible to make a reliable model with that bullshit detector.
