Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey just sent threatening letters to Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta, claiming their AI chatbots violated Missouri’s consumer protection laws. The crim…
Despite the problems with these LLMs, I have found them tremendously valuable when it comes to finding sources regarding historical events.
It’s much easier to find historical evidence that goes against the status quo with LLMs than it is with a conventional search engine. I suspect that this is an unintentional side effect of the technology; the fact that these LLMS are black boxes might have something to do with it.
I understand what you mean and don’t entirely disagree. If you use it like a calculator with information YOU’VE ALREADY ASSEMBLED. If you rely on it to have all information and/or give an accurate rendering of whatever it’s trained on, you’re probably gonna have a bad time. I’m working on a book that includes, in part, information about the Mormons’ history with slavery. If you ask AI, it will sometimes insist they never had slaves, at all. In fact, it will argue with you until you get legitimately pissed. Ask me how I know.
Oh yeah the LLM that is built to make things up at the drop of a hat can also make up the sources, its wild that people can still trust a literal machine of lies.
I saw one the other day that stated AC and DC power where interchangeable…
They are both great and also biased. Because LLM training data includes vast libraries of history books, including such works as Dark Alliance, it is capable of running down paths that few historians would walk. I recently used an LLM to find an unimpeachable source for the CIA’s connection to cocaine trafficking aircraft. This was not available through a simple Google search because the site was likely deindexed.
Despite the problems with these LLMs, I have found them tremendously valuable when it comes to finding sources regarding historical events.
It’s much easier to find historical evidence that goes against the status quo with LLMs than it is with a conventional search engine. I suspect that this is an unintentional side effect of the technology; the fact that these LLMS are black boxes might have something to do with it.
Have you asked Grok about the Jewish Holocaust?
I understand what you mean and don’t entirely disagree. If you use it like a calculator with information YOU’VE ALREADY ASSEMBLED. If you rely on it to have all information and/or give an accurate rendering of whatever it’s trained on, you’re probably gonna have a bad time. I’m working on a book that includes, in part, information about the Mormons’ history with slavery. If you ask AI, it will sometimes insist they never had slaves, at all. In fact, it will argue with you until you get legitimately pissed. Ask me how I know.
The ability to make shit up helps as well.
Certainly! that’s why you use them to find sources. I don’t immediately trust anything an LLM spits out.
The amount of times I see people just take what is outputted as gospel is scary. And on things with real risk like electrical repair!
I’ve seen Google AI say one thing and provided the source. When I read the source, sometimes it’s completely different or even the exact opposite.
Oh yeah the LLM that is built to make things up at the drop of a hat can also make up the sources, its wild that people can still trust a literal machine of lies.
I saw one the other day that stated AC and DC power where interchangeable…
Source: see AC/DC band.
They are both great and also biased. Because LLM training data includes vast libraries of history books, including such works as Dark Alliance, it is capable of running down paths that few historians would walk. I recently used an LLM to find an unimpeachable source for the CIA’s connection to cocaine trafficking aircraft. This was not available through a simple Google search because the site was likely deindexed.