I see your argument, but it's not exactly news that an expert found a flaw in a popular tool. You could say the same about Wikipedia--experts have tons of issues with it, but Wikipedia still provides value to non-experts. The most likely alternative to Wikipedia for non-experts is simply not trying to learn anything new.

Similarly with LLMs, you can't just write them off entirely because they sometimes provide misleading or incorrect advice. The positive utility maximizing view is to learn when you need to call in an expert. I recently moved in to a new house and have used Claude extensively to figure out basic things (e.g., adjusting the garage door height, how to mount a TV). However, when the HVAC suddenly stopped working, I gave Claude a shot for an hour and tried some non-destructive fixes, but then realized I had to call in an HVAC expert.

▲

frereubu 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Slightly OT Nitpick: in regard to experts and Wikipedia, when doing a neuroscience-adjacent MSc, experts in the field actually directed me to Wikipedia as an excellent source for high-level neuroanatomy, including recent research, so I'm not sure your blanket description about experts and Wikipedia is correct.

▲

ohyes an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The free alternative to Wikipedia is the library, not “don’t learn anything new ever”.

I find Claude is surprisingly similar to a confident but incorrect coworker, with the benefit that Claude will reevaluate when I correct it.

▲

sxg 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I used the phrase "most likely alternative" intentionally. The library is where people should go to get answers in a world without Wikipedia, but the vast majority of people won't. So in practice, most non-experts either learn from Wikipedia or don't try to learn anything at all.

	▲	ohyes 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, if we’re going to go that broad. People are already leaning heavily towards learning nothing instead of using Wikipedia. I guess to me it has to be comparable to be an alternative. Like, I don’t consider doomscrolling x an alternative to reading Wikipedia but I might consider it an alternative to CNN, even though they’re all technically and very broadly activities that I could use to inform myself. In that same way I don’t consider the multitude of ways I could use my free will necessarily alternatives to each other even though they technically are. It kinda sucks but going that broad feels to me like it breaks the concept of alternative and makes it kind of meaningless.

▲

bflesch an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Claude will do everything to retain you as a user, because that's one of their most important metrics.

	▲	ohyes a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Excellent point my colleague has the exact opposite incentive.