snark @ llms
Ngl, that so many businesspeople consider overconfident wild-ass word salad to be expert advice says more about their lived experiences than whether an LLM can do any of that.
I wonder if anyone has tried A-B testing this with real vs LLM input in their workplace in, say, standup or status emails. To see just how much of a typical job has literally no critical thought or feedback behind it.
If that's where most of the value is: plausibly automating busywork, then, well.
snark @ llms
@Goldkin A distressing number of people in upper echelons of numerous sectors consider computers to be magic. If these magic crystals can do everything for them without complaint, why not use them instead of employees that might question their limited worldview?
I'd say maybe it's them that should be replaced with LLMs, not the workers, but that would probably invite its own problems.
... I think I just reworded everything you just said. x wx;
snark @ llms
@Aether Someone once opined back when it was Twitter (regarding elections, in that thread): "I'm more worried about people failing the Turing test than computers passing it".
And that's been on my mind a lot lately, regarding how blindly some folks trust computers and people that they don't understand.
snark @ llms
@Goldkin @Aether the past ten or so years has been coddling users who way back would've taken interest and maybe actually have learned.
Add that to the number who people who don't want learn or won't care and it was kind of a fire waiting to happen sadly