[jdiff]

Only need one, they're not thinking critically about the media they consume during training.

[falcor84]

Here's a sad prediction: over the coming few years, AIs will get significantly better at critical evaluation of sources, while humans will get even worse at it.

[whstl]

I wish I could disagree with you, but what I'm seeing on average (especially at work) is exactly that: people asking stuff to ChatGPT and accepting hallucinations as fact, and then fighting me when I say it's not true.

[sailfast]

Hot take: Humans have always been bad at this (in the aggregate, without training). Only a certain percentage of the population took the time to investigate.

For most throughout history, whatever is presented to you that you believe is the right answer. AI just brings them source information faster so what you're seeing is mostly just the usual behavior, but faster. Before AI people would not have bothered to try and figure out an answer to some of these questions. It would've been too much work.

[topaz0]

My sad prediction is that LLMs and humans will both get worse. Humans might get worse faster though.

[keybored]

HN commenters will be technooptimistic misanthrops. Status quo ante bellum.

[andy_ppp]

The secret sauce about having good understanding, taste and style (both for coding and writing) has always been in the fine tuning and RHLF steps. I'd be skeptical if the signals a few GitHub repos or blogs generate at the initial stages of the learning are that critical. There's probably a filter also for good taste on the initial training set and these are so large not even a single full epoch is done on the data these days.

[jama211]

It wouldn’t work at all.