Don't try to drag this down to kindergarten level. It is unbecoming and says bad things about you. Sure, only something like 10-15% of the human race are actually rational and can fact-check, but these people exist.
No. You cannot. This bullshit statement shows that you have no clue.
And do you have any proof of that or is that just what your decidedly non-expert evaluation is? It is _very_ easy to get things totally and completely wrong in the medical space.
What if you just want to be abysmally stupid? Sure, you can be. It is not illegal or something. But do not push it as a model to aspire to, because that will harm _others_ and at that point you leave what is acceptable.
Sure. But why do people not want to do it? Using your mind is the only way to get better at it.
And that is a problem that is actually pretty hard and expensive to solve. For software. An experienced and smart human can do it easily. A machine cannot.
That is one thing I do not get. Silence is nice. Allows you to think clearly.
A ruling that says "engagement engineering" is illegal would be difficult to enforce, but presumably not impossible.
At the very least it would curb extreme cases like the one from the story.
And how do you propose to get that medical diagnosis and treatment plan right when you lack the knowledge, education and experience to spot the mistakes? Right.
Good luck, you are going to need it. LLMs cannot replace experts.
Well, the belief in AI is a cult-like thing. No rationality involved. The last few AI hypes already showed that nicely.
Given that the current record for quantum-factorization is 35 (!), they will have to do some industrial-strength lying to get that across. Not that these two are unfamiliar with that approach.
No? Why would you even think that except if you just wanted to throw crap?
Here in the real world, a perceptron is a very simple thing and an LLM very much is not. Are you unaware of that?
Namely that LLM-type AI has taken over and hence AI must be really great and valuable and the future and whatnot.
The truth looks a bit different. LLMs are still incapable as hell and will continue to hallucinate, because there is no way to fix that. Keeping LLMs updated gets harder and harder due to AI slop. Nobody is making any profits on LLMs, these things just burn money like crazy. And there are very few somewhat working use-cases and these come with really big caveats.
No, they cannot. LLMs cannot do logical reasoning and that is a requirement for any type of fact-checking or verification. All they can do is correlations and that is not enough.
While using non-LLM AI or non-AI tools is a possibility for fact-checking (in simple cases as the one here), you overlook that basically the only advantage of LLMs is that they are comparatively easy to create. Creating these "other tools" that would be needed here would be a lot more expensive and a lot more work than creating general LLMs. And hence, for most cases, these "other tools" do not exist.
I do not "think so". I am just referring to research results. You, on the other hand, have nothing. LLMs cannot fact-check, period.
Robotics just uses the fact that you can train whatever you use pretty well and you can use _other_ systems there to install guardrails and these other systems come with physics models and can do (limited) fact checking in there. These other systems are not LLMs though. LLMs cannot fact-check in robotics either.
If you always postpone pleasure you will never have it. Quit work and play for once!
