They are called "religion", "propaganda", "fairy tales", etc.. and they are always used to control people. The only thing that is different now is that we can automatize it. The ones that were not impressed before will continue to be not impressed.

But with about 85% of the human race being religious, there is a rich target field for manipulation. Incidentally, this corresponds nicely with about 15% of the human race being able to fact-check.

The person you answered to clearly things the LLM constructed something and had agency and insight, when in reality it just found everything in its training data and just did a bit of aggregation via correlation (not implication, LLMs cannot do implications) and then presented what it found in a seemingly polished fashion.

If you have no clue how an LLM works and are not very smart (i.e. Dunning-Kruger left-side), you can come to this invalid conclusion.

Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming an LLM is not a statistical engine? If so, you need to have your head examined, because that is the literal, mathematical truth.

Hahaha, no. It is just "clear" to you, because you have no clue how research, or risk management or securing software works.

I, on the other hand, am quite capable of identifying critical parts of a performance landscape and then look into those as a priority.

Or in other words, insightless comment is without insight...

Hell yes! It is the American Way!

Actually, he is relevant in this case.

Indeed. Small? WTF? Cannot have that! We need to take IMMEDIATE steps to make our Ozone-hole the largest and most magnificent!

No argument about that. Applies not only to governments, but to anybody that want power in order to control people (that is why most, but not all people go into politics). Hence religion, cults, company structures, even some people in groups of social media have this. It boils down to dominance in some form and it not a positive personality trait.

Yes, very much so. Sometimes it is hard, but the better the rapport you build with the students, the better it works. Talking to them in breaks helps. Showing the occasional weakness helps. If some student know something relevant better than you, let them talk for a few minutes. Of course, some students want the degree, but not do the work (which is really stupid, but it happens) and that is why I have stopped teaching mandatory subjects. If you do not really want to be in my lecture, I do not want you to be there either.

What kind of a nonsense posting is that? Stop projecting and read what I actually wrote.

That would require that there are no more and no less than the materials required in existence. The problem students face is not lack of materials. The problem is they are faced with vastly more materials than they need and most do not yet have the skills to competently make a selection and structure structure what they selected.

Other than that, I agree with your statement.

Indeed. Also reminds me of a certain "stable genius".

I know how to use this stuff: Stay away from it, it adds nothing and wastes my time. Oh, I have one use: I currently have a student evaluate the major coding assistant and some general LLMs on how good they can judge code security. The results so far are that they work well for toy examples and not well or not at all for real situations. This may eventually get me a nice publication.

While I do not completely agree, the idea has merit.

Fascinating. This is even worse than I thought. For this, there should be ample correct data in the training data set. But it still cannot do it. Well.