| ▲ | simianwords 6 days ago |
| Similar to anything really. Can I really trust anything without verifying? Scientific journals? |
|
| ▲ | lblume 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It seems that on some level, you have to in order to not just constantly reflecting upon your thoughts and researching facts. Whether you trust a given source should surely depend upon its reputation regarding the validity of its claims. |
| |
| ▲ | simianwords 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree and by reputation you mean accuracy. We implicitly know not to judge anything as 100% true and implicitly apply skepticism towards sources - the skepticism is decided by our past experience with the sources. Think of LLMs as the less accurate version of scientific journals. | | |
| ▲ | lblume 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Accuracy certainly does play a role, but this in itself is not sufficient for preventing an infinite regress – how does one determine the accuracy of a source if not by evaluating claims about the source, that themselves have sources that need to be checked for accuracy? Empirical inquiries are optimal but often very unpractical. Reputation is accuracy as imperfectly valued by society or specific social groups collectively. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | exe34 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you verify everything? When your wife puts food in front of you, do you make her take a bite off your plate first to check for poison? |
| |
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | simonw 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A crucial difference between LLMs and people is that you can build a mutual trust relationship with a person. | | |
| ▲ | exe34 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Exactly - also, if I were 14 I'd be hyperventilating right now. I love your blog posts! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cindyllm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
