Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
The more I use various LLMs, the more I've come to realise that they have a tendency to confidently lie. More often than not, it seems an LLM will give me the answer it thinks I want to hear, even if the details of it's answer are factually incorrect.
Using these tools to decide and affect real peoples lives is a very dangerous prospect.
Interesting article. Thanks
Thank you for this much needed reality check. I don't understand why the Government are doing venture capital's bidding.
Labour are all about the billionaire donors these days.
Presumably 'AI' can make simple rules based decisions, if done properly (unfortunately, being the UK government this is a big 'if').
But what exactly is sacking a million people supposed to do to the economy?
Presumably ‘AI’ can make simple rules based decisions, if done properl
honest question: was this meant seriously, or in jest?
Serious.
Why do you ask the question?
"AI" in the context of the article is "LLMs". So, the definition of not trustworthy.
You should not need an AI to do that if it's not a freeform text input?
Who knows what the British government acutally means when they say 'AI'? I doubt they do.
And I assume there is a sliding scale from what I described my excel speadsheet is capable of today, to whatever it is they hope AI will eventually interpret. And in fact barring the inevitable fuckups AI probably can eventual handle a lot of interpretation currently carried out by human civil servants.
But honestly I would have thought that all of this is obvious, and that I shouldn't really have to articulate it.
My main point is that they claim they will save one million jobs (so sack one million people) and this will somehow boost the UK economy. I don't see how it can.
Covid really showed that most jobs are not essential. I would suggest most jobs exist because the people exist to do them: a situation an increasingly small number of people have got themselves into a position to profit from.
What happens when AI takes away swathes of bullshit jobs but the people still exist? Silicon valley is hoping to make AI functional enough essentially leave somebody else holding the bag, after emptying it of goodies. For some reason, the UK government seem to think this will be a boost to the UK economy: I'll assume basic cluelessness until I see some other reasonable suggestion.
And in fact barring the inevitable fuckups AI probably can eventual handle a lot of interpretation currently carried out by human civil servants.
But honestly I would have thought that all of this is obvious, and that I shouldn’t really have to articulate it.
you keep making claims about what LLMs are capable of that don’t match with any known reality outside of OpenAI and friends’ marketing, dodging anyone who asks you to explain, and acting like a bit of a shit about it. I don’t think we need your posts.
the post history is very infosec dot pub
a terrible place for both information and security
and a terrible pub
Jury's still out on the Damage Over Time effect.
why do you think hallucinating autocomplete can make rules-based decisions reliably
AI analyses it, decides if applicant is entitled to benefits.
why do you think this is simple
My excel spreadsheet does it on a daily basis.
This is boring.
good, use your excel spreadsheet and not a tool that fucking sucks at it
citation/link/reference, please