(I keep delivering this as a quip, here's a bit more) First order of business - is 'tool' going to have an interesting, distinguishing and thus illuminative meaning or be a mere platitudinous stand-in for "anything useful"? We'll save tool as "anyone/thing that can be exploited" for the AI titans, f
If you’re not an idiot, and you (nevertheless) use LLMs, they probably meet most of those criteria.
I don’t like how the author buys into anthropomorphization. LLMs do not act on their own.
He’s right that tools don’t “go rogue”. Neither do LLMs. That’s just a lie to try to avoid accountability. ChatGPT didn’t hack the Australian government; PEOPLE did, and those people belong in prison.
LLMs ar intrinsically undeterministic. You cannot posibly control what they do, and you (realistically) don’t control the data tgat they have been trained on and how they are tuned to behave. Respectfully. I think your statement shows a lack of fundamental understanding on how they work.
If you’re not an idiot, and you (nevertheless) use LLMs, they probably meet most of those criteria.
I don’t like how the author buys into anthropomorphization. LLMs do not act on their own.
He’s right that tools don’t “go rogue”. Neither do LLMs. That’s just a lie to try to avoid accountability. ChatGPT didn’t hack the Australian government; PEOPLE did, and those people belong in prison.
LLMs ar intrinsically undeterministic. You cannot posibly control what they do, and you (realistically) don’t control the data tgat they have been trained on and how they are tuned to behave. Respectfully. I think your statement shows a lack of fundamental understanding on how they work.
It’s a matter of degrees, and of use case.
If your use case demands 100% accuracy, that’s a dead end.
If you can’t validate the output, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
I keep going back to the same rule of thumb: if you can’t do it without AI, you can’t do it, period. It’s a time saver, not a magic wand.
oh damn, i’m stealing that last one.