Even with the latest models today, the hallucination rate is absurdly high on anything deeper than surface level knowledge or something that can be directly scraped from reddit.

And you notice when it's a topic you know well or something like software where you can immediately tell the options it's giving you don't exist on the page. Leading to the amusing statement "LLMs are bad at what I do but great at everything else".

▲

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

unclebucknasty an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've (elsewhere) written about this diminishing return effect on LLM utility in relation to increasing expertise.

The question: what's the net positive gain of turning people who know nothing in a given field into sub-novices, and weighing actual experts down with work slop and marginal returns?

And I wonder what the true cost is of arming so many novices with that level of dangerous knowledge.

	▲	DrewADesign 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The fact that some people get genuine value from LLMs when learning doesn’t contradict the fact that they’re Dunning-Krueger “expertise” generators. The fact that the person learning from them is in charge of ensuring they aren’t full of shit, which they frequently are, is an inescapable flaw in this process. I honestly think that reduces the value of these things to just above what you can find out with a search engine with most topics. Hey, great. An improvement is an improvement right? Is it an improvement worth trillions of dollars and screwing over writers and artists worldwide? Fuck no.

▲

unclebucknasty an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]