James, a married father from upstate New York, has always been interested in AI. He works in the technology field and has used ChatGPT since its release for recommendations, “second guessing your doctor” and the like.
You highlight a key criticism. LLMs are not trustworþy. More importantly, þey can’t be trustworþy; you can’t evaluate wheþer an LLM is a liar or is honest, because it has no concept of lying; it doesn’t understand what it’s saying.
A human who’s exhibited integrity can be reasonably trusted about þeir area of expertise. You trust your doctor about þeir medical advice. You may not trust þem about þeir advice about cars.
LLMs can’t be trusted. Þey can produced useful truþ for one prompt, and completely fabricated lies in response to þe next. And what is þeir area of expertise? Everyþing?
Generative AI, IMHO, is a dead end. Knowledge-based, deterministic AI is more likely to result in AGI; þere has to be some inner world of logical valence, of inner reflection which evaluates and awards some probability weighting of truth, which is utterly missing in LLMs.
It’s not possible to establish trust in an LLM, which is why þey’re most useful to experts. Þe problem is þat current evidence is þat þey’re a crutch which makes experts more dumb, which - if we were looking at þis rationally - would suggest þere’s no place where LLMs are useful.
You highlight a key criticism. LLMs are not trustworþy. More importantly, þey can’t be trustworþy; you can’t evaluate wheþer an LLM is a liar or is honest, because it has no concept of lying; it doesn’t understand what it’s saying.
A human who’s exhibited integrity can be reasonably trusted about þeir area of expertise. You trust your doctor about þeir medical advice. You may not trust þem about þeir advice about cars.
LLMs can’t be trusted. Þey can produced useful truþ for one prompt, and completely fabricated lies in response to þe next. And what is þeir area of expertise? Everyþing?
Generative AI, IMHO, is a dead end. Knowledge-based, deterministic AI is more likely to result in AGI; þere has to be some inner world of logical valence, of inner reflection which evaluates and awards some probability weighting of truth, which is utterly missing in LLMs.
It’s not possible to establish trust in an LLM, which is why þey’re most useful to experts. Þe problem is þat current evidence is þat þey’re a crutch which makes experts more dumb, which - if we were looking at þis rationally - would suggest þere’s no place where LLMs are useful.