How do you know whether the explanation is correct or just sounds correct?
You guys know the game tekken, right? Tekken 3 and 4 were before the vast majority of llm training feeds and it shows, there's a move sequence for Bryan, taunt into while standing 1, I've dabbled in this with programmable controllers , frame by frame recording, not a single llm model could explain how and why this works.
If it would understand the game mechanics, it's trivial, but it just does not understand.
Just because a dev can read and interpret an api documentation doesn't mean he is an expert or even remotely close to that.
Arguably, llm are "good" at programming. Where's the disruption in cpp hft ?
Part of it is using good judgment. Is the AI's claim reasonable if it came from another person? If some random person gave you a 2 page paper proving P=NP, would you even spend time to look at it, or would you simply toss it without caring to understand what error they made. Much like how scientists (and even the patent office) simply refuse to entertain any perpetual motion machines. Maybe if an expert in the field proposed it, and even that would depend upon how ("Hey, I found a source of free energy!" vs "Hey, I'm working through these equations and the energy term isn't balancing, can you help me find what energy source I'm missing?").
This does pose a problem. Those who are the best at understanding the limits of their knowledge and at teaching themselves need the AI's help the least but are in the position to be able to use AI with the best chance of not being misled. Those who lack these skills and would benefit the most from a personal educator, thus receving the biggest benefit in theory, are the ones most likely to fall victim to the errors made by the AI.
It's kind of infuriating to hear Dutch people cite these chatbots without bothering to check https://www.thuisarts.nl/.
I'm aware, both of my parents are retired GPs.
Back when they retired, about a decade ago, they already had spent a decade complaining that the a constant increase in excessive administrative work got in the way of the actual work of being a doctor that helps their patients. So much that they had joined the strike (remember when that was a big deal because it happened for the first time in Dutch history?)
Anyway, the situation got more complex since then but a lot of pressure is also still administration. Yes, now we have assistants taking on more complex tasks leaving the "important" things to the real doctors, but I think that the need for that is also is in large part due to doctors not getting enough time to be doctors.
And I feel like automation will help fight back at that about as much as IBM's 1967 prediction came true that their office machines would fight back at the "paperwork explosion". Which is to say: Jevons paradox said no.
Sometimes I don't know a topic well enough to even know the right terms, or sources. But an LLM can help me become familiar with relevant concepts, and then I can more easily find the authoritative sources.
Sometimes I don't know a topic well enough to know how far it is from my understanding. An LLM helps me quickly learn how closely I have the relevant foundational knowledge: if it's absolutely gobbledygook, then I realise I've probably bitten off more than I can chew; if I half sounds familiar, then I can more confidently begin independent exploring of authoritative sources.
Worse, I claimed the moral high ground. Lesson learned!
The problem with google'ing 2 years ago was a combination of SEO hijacking and sheer ignorance on the user's end.
Critical thinking is a necessary ingredient regardless of the tools being used
But you're right that you can't be 100% certain. Isn't that true for human-to-human explanations too?
"Just see a physio" misses that:
* I want the physio's advice during workouts
* I want the physio's advice during moments of pain
* I want the physio to explain things in more detail, but my 30-60 minute appt is not enough, and it's difficult/expensive to book them for longer.