Jonathan Lamothe on Nostr: @[url=]Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸[/url] I guess my problem here ...

@[url=https://cosocial.ca/users/evan]Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸[/url] I guess my problem here is that I can't trust the LLM not to "hallucinate" the answer. I would feel the need to double check them, negating any benefit I might get because I'd have to do the same amount of work anyway. I can perhaps see some limited utility in using the LLM as a sort of search though, e.g.: "where in this codebase can I find the logic that handles $thing?"

The one point where I [em]really[/em] get hung up is this: if machines can in fact [em]think[/em]—which I doubt for reasons that are outside the scope of this post—would that not make it morally wrong for us to try to bend them to our will? What makes that different from slavery? I bring this up because it seems to be the argument supporting your position that LLM output doesn't constitute a derived work of its training data.