I’ve done several assessments of the output of popular llms in my field of expertise. I generally conclude that they are “worse than worthless”, because they actively try to persuade you of false information.
Your whole thesis about people whose output is “lesser” than llms is totally misguided. Yes there is a systemic research and comprehension issue. No, the AI doesn’t help people with it. What I’ve observed is that people don’t really ever defer to the AI if it coincidently contradicts their beliefs, they just coax it until it says whatever they want, then end up problematically overconfident because “the ai told them so”
I could keep replying in regards to the unmotivated school children and the inappropriate reformatted analogy but what’s the point if you’re just gonna be a broken record? We all understand that you think most people are morons and that you and your buddies have deep talks about AI in which you’ve concluded that nobody can really “know” anything well enough to comment on their capabilities, but in spite of this you personally are able to not just “know” what it is capable of but even how it stacks up against against different types of humans. The line of reasoning is totally absurd
These are compelling points and you are swaying my belief with them. I’d like to do a similar study and see the results .
I certainly do not believe anything I said applied to school children. Honestly I think they should be kept entirely away from any form of conversational AI until they have a fully developed frontal cortex and have been taught how to conduct research and think critically for themselves
I’ve done several assessments of the output of popular llms in my field of expertise. I generally conclude that they are “worse than worthless”, because they actively try to persuade you of false information.
Your whole thesis about people whose output is “lesser” than llms is totally misguided. Yes there is a systemic research and comprehension issue. No, the AI doesn’t help people with it. What I’ve observed is that people don’t really ever defer to the AI if it coincidently contradicts their beliefs, they just coax it until it says whatever they want, then end up problematically overconfident because “the ai told them so”
I could keep replying in regards to the unmotivated school children and the inappropriate reformatted analogy but what’s the point if you’re just gonna be a broken record? We all understand that you think most people are morons and that you and your buddies have deep talks about AI in which you’ve concluded that nobody can really “know” anything well enough to comment on their capabilities, but in spite of this you personally are able to not just “know” what it is capable of but even how it stacks up against against different types of humans. The line of reasoning is totally absurd
These are compelling points and you are swaying my belief with them. I’d like to do a similar study and see the results .
I certainly do not believe anything I said applied to school children. Honestly I think they should be kept entirely away from any form of conversational AI until they have a fully developed frontal cortex and have been taught how to conduct research and think critically for themselves