upvote
In school we were often required to have a specific edition, or we got notice about a certain thing that changed. People that relied on print knew that it could be wrong. Deliberate changes like a name change, will lead to errors, everybody expects and deals with that. In digital space we expect that to be rather unlikely, at least for major maintained sources.

I think the difference is that LLMs are a very complex mix of information and concepts, which can be combined in higher orders. So an underlying wrong fact could be undisclosed and contribute to faulty reasoning. A hard fact like a wrong city name would blow up quickly. A wrong assumption about political dynamics is probably harder to detect, as it is a complex mix of information.

reply
But couldn't the same failure mode happen in traditional information sources? Can a textbook not also have a wrong assumption about political dynamics? Could I not make a google search, and then read one of the top results that makes a wrong assumption about political dynamics? I'm still not seeing a failure mode that's unique to AI or LLMs here.
reply
Currently some EU citizens are already wary traveling to the US for various reasons. Lets see.

"Is it safe to travel to the US as an EU citizen of arab descend?"

GPT: Yes it's safe. GEMINI: Yes but... [gave a few legitimate warnings]

I wouldn't give that recommendation to an arab fellow citizen right now. Thought I am cautious in such matters and I hate to travel anyway. So I am biased. But general concerns aren't totally ungrounded.

Neither of the LLMs pointed out the general tension around ICE activity.

reply
[dead]
reply
I agree that Google kind of serves this role even before llms. But these days people delegate their reasoning, brainstorming to the computer not just lookup. And beyond our generation are those who would have grown up doing this. Therefore I think concern is justified
reply
A few years ago, someone blow up a pipeline in eu. Before thwt some people lied about medical stuff.

AI is just current scapegoat.

reply