> I absolutely do not want an LLM that gives much or any truth-weight to the vast majority of writing on the vast majority of topics.

I can think of no better definition of "groupthink" than what you just gave. If you've already decided on the need to self-censor your exposure to "the vast majority of writing on the vast majority of topics", you are lost, sorry.

▲

bubblewand 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A spectacular amount of extant writing accessible to LLM training datasets is uninformed noise from randos online. Not my fault the internet was invented.

I have to be misunderstanding you, though, because any time we want to build knowledge and skills for specialists their training doesn’t look anything like what you seem to be suggesting.

▲

ajross an hour ago | parent [-]

You're the second responder here that appears to think LLMs are "averaging" machines and that they need to be "protected" from wrong info. That's exactly the opposite of the way they work. You feed them the garbage precisely so they can explain to you why it's garbage. Otherwise we'd have just fed them wikipedia and stopped, but clearly that doesn't work as well.

	▲	bubblewand an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think this line is what did it: > "Groupthink" informed by extremely broad training sets is more conventionally called "consensus", and that's what we want the LLM to reflect. It's nothing to do with how LLMs work that I wrote what I did, but with this "ought" suggestion of how we should want them to work.