Show

  • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
    ·
    1 month ago

    It's not that they hired the wrong people, it's that LLMs struggle with both numbers and factual accuracy. This isn't a personel issue, it's a structural issue with LLMs.

    • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because LLMs just basically appeared in Google search and it was not any Google employee's decision to implement them despite knowing they're bullshit generators /s

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean, define employee. I'm sure someone with a Chief title was the one who made the decision. Everyone else gets to do it or find another job.

          • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I mean LLMs are cool to work on and a fun concept. An n dimensional regression where n is the trillions of towns in your dataset is cool. The issue is that it is cool in the same way as a grappling hook or a blockchain.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      deleted by creator

      • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
        ·
        1 month ago

        Google gets around 9 billion searches per day. Human fact checking google search quick responses would be an impossible. If each fact check takes 30 seconds, you would need close to 10 million people working full time just to fact check that.

          • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
            ·
            1 month ago

            also I'm pretty sure Google could hire 10 million people

            Assuming minimum wage at full time, that is 36 billion a year. Google extracts 20 billion in surplus labor per year, so no, Google could not 10 million people.

        • UlyssesT
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          deleted by creator

          • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
            ·
            1 month ago

            Are you also suggesting it's impossible for specific times that it really matters, such as medical information?

            Firstly, how do you filter for medical information in a way that works 100% of the time. You are going to miss a lot of medical questions because NLI has countless edge cases. Secondly, you need to make sure your fact checkers are accurate, which is very hard to do. Lastly, you are still getting millions and millions of medical questions per day and you would need tens of thousands of medical fact checkers that need to be perfectly accurate. Having fact checkers will lull people into a false sense of security, which will be very bad when they inevitably get things wrong.

            • UlyssesT
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              deleted by creator

              • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                If you see a note saying "This was confirmed to be correct by our well-trained human fact checkers" and one saying "[Gemini] can make mistakes. Check important info.", you are more likely to believe the first than the second. The solution here is to look at actual articles with credited authors, not to have an army of people reviewing every single medical query.

                • UlyssesT
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 days ago

                  deleted by creator

                  • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    LLM usage here doesn't help, that's true. But medical queries weren't good before LLM's either, just because it's an incredibly complex field with many edge cases. There is a reason self diagnosis is dangerous and it isn't because of technology.technology.

                    • UlyssesT
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      11 days ago

                      deleted by creator