I find that debatable. You’ll have to read a lot of irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia first to get the answer you’re looking for. Furthermore, getting educated on related, but important topics in order to read and understand the article is much more effort then getting a tailored answer by an LLM. It also tunes to your specific level of understanding whereas the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia articles varies strongly with topic and your current understanding.
It also tunes to your specific level of understanding whereas the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia articles varies strongly with topic and your current understanding.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe this? Who told you this horse shit and how the fuck were you oblivious enough to eat it? Jesus fucking christ. Holy shit. That is a monumental level of naivety and gullibility. That is so fucking stupid.
Furthermore, getting educated on related, but important topics in order to read and understand the article is much more effort then getting a tailored answer by an LLM.
Ah, that’s the issue. I don’t want information spoon-fed to me and I live for learning how the world works. I learn better if I put in more effort, so why would I want to save it? Besides, I can usually skim and find what I’m looking for if I just want quick facts.
That’s cool, I like to do so as well. But it highly depends on the topic. If you have no interest in the topic and only need to deal with some stuff temporarily then reading multiple related encyclopedia entries thoroughly is much more time intensive than getting it ‘spoon fed’. Especially when you look at the outcomes this might just not be worth the effort.
And that’s one of the uses where I find LLMs neat: get the answer tailored to what you want and what you need, skipping a lot of intellectual bloat that you have no use or interest for anyway.
But I fundamentally don’t trust it in a way that is different than any real source. It just isn’t a good tool for accurate information and never will be. Even if it’s using accurate sources, the summaries can easily mislead by virtue of not understanding which details are most important. It can’t reliably figure out what is relevant though language analysis alone.
Yeah you’re right about the accuracy issue. Even if an LLM is 90% accurate, after 1 million requests, you still get 100 thousand erroneous replies. This is significant. Which is why caution is important. I suppose there is a middle way between risks of errors and the outcome one would like to achieve.
I find that debatable. You’ll have to read a lot of irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia first to get the answer you’re looking for. Furthermore, getting educated on related, but important topics in order to read and understand the article is much more effort then getting a tailored answer by an LLM. It also tunes to your specific level of understanding whereas the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia articles varies strongly with topic and your current understanding.
Sorry, sorry, I had to come back to this.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe this? Who told you this horse shit and how the fuck were you oblivious enough to eat it? Jesus fucking christ. Holy shit. That is a monumental level of naivety and gullibility. That is so fucking stupid.
“I don’t want to have to think and learn, it’s too hard, I like when computer tell how think.” - you
Ah, that’s the issue. I don’t want information spoon-fed to me and I live for learning how the world works. I learn better if I put in more effort, so why would I want to save it? Besides, I can usually skim and find what I’m looking for if I just want quick facts.
That’s cool, I like to do so as well. But it highly depends on the topic. If you have no interest in the topic and only need to deal with some stuff temporarily then reading multiple related encyclopedia entries thoroughly is much more time intensive than getting it ‘spoon fed’. Especially when you look at the outcomes this might just not be worth the effort.
And that’s one of the uses where I find LLMs neat: get the answer tailored to what you want and what you need, skipping a lot of intellectual bloat that you have no use or interest for anyway.
But I fundamentally don’t trust it in a way that is different than any real source. It just isn’t a good tool for accurate information and never will be. Even if it’s using accurate sources, the summaries can easily mislead by virtue of not understanding which details are most important. It can’t reliably figure out what is relevant though language analysis alone.
Yeah you’re right about the accuracy issue. Even if an LLM is 90% accurate, after 1 million requests, you still get 100 thousand erroneous replies. This is significant. Which is why caution is important. I suppose there is a middle way between risks of errors and the outcome one would like to achieve.