Post

I covered this in my premium last week, it’s laughable! www.wheresyoured.at/ai-mythbuste...

Also a journalist here. I've tried out every LLM since GPT 2 for viability as a research-assistant. They suck. Reasons: They have no idea of relevancy. They omit interesting anecdotes, they will miss patterns of behaviour etc. They will choose the wrong focus. On top of that come the hallucinations.

You can only use them if mediocre is good enough for you. And even then you will have to still fact-check everything. You'll also be left with a lessened understanding of the story you're trying to report. It sounds good and the latest versions initially seem like they could be valuable. But: nope.

The defining feature of LLMs is that they’re a structured “dark pattern” meant to launder the idea that a mind’s on the other side. To that end, unlike any good technology, there’s no affordance that promotes any intended use. Physical objects like cups and hammers have handles, for example.