Not really what I’m saying. More along the lines of: poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
As for LLMs and sciences (and most fields): “drinking poison” -> “treating LLM output as factual”. “killing weed” -> “some otherwise mundane language transformation that you verify the correctness of”.
poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
But that’s not what you said, nor is it the argument you’re making
The pursuit of science by humanity has made it this far for thousands of years. And has done so quite successfully without AI poisoning that pursuit. You have yet to make the argument that the poison of AI is in any way helpful.
Because you can’t. Because it isn’t.
Ignore the evidence at your own peril. I will not.
Not really what I’m saying. More along the lines of: poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
As for LLMs and sciences (and most fields): “drinking poison” -> “treating LLM output as factual”. “killing weed” -> “some otherwise mundane language transformation that you verify the correctness of”.
But that’s not what you said, nor is it the argument you’re making
The pursuit of science by humanity has made it this far for thousands of years. And has done so quite successfully without AI poisoning that pursuit. You have yet to make the argument that the poison of AI is in any way helpful.
Because you can’t. Because it isn’t.
Ignore the evidence at your own peril. I will not.
It kinda seems to me you’re deciding both sides of the argument. It’s like a straw man monologue show.
Arriving at a conclusion without evidence… Exactly the danger that AI presents.
You OK?
Ad hominem attacks.
So, when your argument fails, you just insult the other person?
Blocked
Dude. I’m genuinely asking here. Whatever it is. I hope you figure it out.