Because I’m capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I’m a software developer and it impacts my career. I don’t have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.
Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”
So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?
then why are you using it?
I’m… not? I don’t touch the stuff.
Then how do you know it only responds with “a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too” ?
Because I’m capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I’m a software developer and it impacts my career. I don’t have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.
so you knew what you posted was wrong and posted it anyway just to virtue signal?
What I posted was correct.
it wasn’t but we’ll move on
Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”
So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?
No because that’s your argument, to disprove that it outputs more than pablum you literally just have to use it
I mean the explosion in its use for coding alone kills your argument