I’m not against the technology, I’m against people who runs it. I have problem with how they teach their LLMs on code, user data, music, books, webs all without author’s / user’s consent and worse even with authors / users explicit NO consent to scrape or to use it for learning.
Another level is lack of security - ChatGPT chats available to everyone.
Deep fakes everywhere, just see the latest Taylor Swift one.
Sorry, but fuck you with all of this.
There is lack of basic security, privacy and ignoring all of its danger. Only what that fucking AI firms want is easy, cheep and quick money.
All that hype for nothing = means you cannot even rely on the output.

europe is fucking doomed

yet you need these masses of input for the technology to exist. the business models that base on the technology aren't sustainable even without payment of the input data.

Of common, you justifying stealing by this bullshit?

of course you can. why would a career politician who has very visibly been interested only in politics since his teens know how to do that?

Hah, true. But the point still stands that using an llm itself wasn't a bad thing

i'd say it's still bad because this is the leader of a government consulting with a stochastic parrot instead of experts.

Presumably it wasn't instead of, it was in addition to, and therefore totally fine

it's still not fine, as per my first point. it's leaking information to foreign interests.

Right, but we already addressed that above. If it's done on a local pc's ai that doesn't operate using a net connection, and is used in addition to rather than instead of consulting with people, then it's totally fine

yeah but then we're no longer discussing the topic the thread is about.

Do we really need this technology to exist though? It's unreliable and very niche as far as I have seen.

People say that it speeds up certain tasks, but it's so unreliable that you need to error-check the whole thing afterwards.

Let's be honest though the majority of politicians are so terrible at their job, that this might actually be one of the rare occurrences where AI actually improves the work. But it is very susceptible to unknown influences.

He explicitly states that no sensitive informarion gets used. If you believe that, then I have no issue with him additionally asking for a third opinion from an LLM.

i don't have any reason to believe it, given the track record.

also, the second half of the problem is of course the information that comes back, what it is based on, and what affects that base.

Because of this one incident.
Good how you figured it out.
So much smarter than the rest.
...
Get. out.

He explicitly states that no sensitive informarion gets used. If you believe that, then I have

... a bridge to sell you.

Don't be naive.

That's the big issue. If it was only about competence, I think throwing dice might yield better results than what many politicians are doing. But AI isn't throwing dice but instead reproduces what the creators of the AI want to say.

Creators of AI don't quite have the technology to puppeteer their AI like this.
They can selects the input, they can bias the training, but if the model isn't going to be lobotomized coming out
then they can't really bend it toward any particular one opinion

I'm sure in the future they'll be able to adjust advertising manipulation in real time but not yet.
What is really sketchy is states and leaders relying on commercial models instead of public ones
I think states should train public models and release them for the public good
if only to undermine big tech bros and their nefarious influence

It's a new technology barely out of infancy. Of course it's unreliable and niche. You could say the same thing about any technological advance in history.