Wikis made knowledge available.

Making it accessible, understandable, and usable is another matter.

How LLMs sound is not a fundamental limitation of the technology.

The current model's poor writing style and tone are currently a main focus of research and I would expect improvements there soon.

You do not have to train on anything you do not deem up to standard. This supposed poisoning of training data remains a common fantasy.

▲

SecretDreams 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Making it accessible, understandable, and usable is another matter.

I see no evidence that this is what the use of LLMs is accomplishing for most users. Rather, they see to get distilled answers without the depth required to fully understand the response. Partially because that's what they like, and that's what the LLMs serve. Deeper understanding is not being given by LLMs. Instead, it's the SEMBLANCE of depth and laypeople don't know the difference. It's effectively eroding comprehension for some cool knowledge dopamine hit.

▲

frozenseven 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Cool. Then don't use LLMs and keep waiting for that prophesied "model collapse" to happen. See how that works out for you.

▲

SecretDreams 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm more worried about the collapse of humanity a la idocracy. The model collapse might just be secondary. Even just conversing on HN, that's the vibe I feel we're headed towards. Or, perhaps, I'm just running into more and more posters that have financial ties to the success of LLMs.

	▲	frozenseven 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Model collapse is an induced phenomenon, not something you'll ever see in practice. Of course naive predictions of an impending 'collapse' go back to at least GPT-3 (that's over 6 years ago), yet models continue to get smarter. And speaking of predictions, I assume you've been saying that AI is "fake" for just as long?