Just a couple of days ago, a customer rep at a company we partner with dropped a long doc that had basic reasoning errors once you got into the individual sections.
I would have much preferred if the rep had written a shorter document and reached out about things they were uncertain about. Instead thet wasted my and my team's time as we first tried to make sense of the document on good faith before realizing the problem.
I don't care if people use LLMs per se, but if this is functionally the result, then in this aspect of my work things would go much better if people did not use them. They are a great interface for talking to a machine, but due to the laziness they breed, they are a terrible interface for talking to other humans unless approached with a great deal of discipline.
Yes, you hit on the main problem with LLMs for writing. It doesn't cost you anything. It can do the reasoning for you and creating long messaging with dodgy reasoning.
I think you should write down your thoughts, tell it to make the points you spelled out and be concise and respectful of the reader's time and attention. When I do this, it works very well. But I agree if you just have it respond and reason it tends to often produces bad responses.
Just to add context and not to comment on rightness, that was one of the early core purposes of policing--to ensure that a people in a particular public space (where either the people or the space are particularly vulnerable) are free from unwanted disturbance. Here is that exact concept shown in a painting from 172 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gleaners_(Jules_Breton).
This is fascinating, and there's a key inconsistency in the article that points to an unresolved mystery.
The author posits that sweet potatoes and tobacco moved into the highlands through intermarriage. Yet he later acknowledges that genetic evidence suggests no mixing of the highland people with the coastal people. So to me the mystery remains of how those crops got there.
"So the plants crossed over and started moving east along the coast and up into the interior. Beyond that point, there were no merchants. But when a woman married into the next clan over, she took cuttings from her family’s garden with her."
The key phrase is "Beyond that point", where that point is up into the interior where there were no merchants. That's when marriage took over.
It has been said that a person cannot serve two masters.
The incentive system in the West right now is structured such that corporate executives gain a great reward from serving their company, and little punishment from failing to serve humanity. If society is to flourish, humanity must be structurally prioritized.
Due to regulatory capture and general corruption, I don't think an approach that merely tries to punish corporations financially will ever work. If you have executive powers and commit or permit a crime against humanity in the name of your company, then you have declared your allegiance. A functioning society would punish this in the most serious way possible. Great power, great responsibility and all that.
We used to reward people for serving humanity by making them feel good about public service and being a citizen and neighbour. That was a thing people around me had growing up and many of my family dedicated their life to public service professions (teaching, city administration, etc.) on that basis. And this was common among the middle class generally. You could have a reasonable lifelong profession and a good retirement doing this.
Cynicism has washed that away. And people openly disparage public servants and get resentful of people who still manage to pull a living in this way.
There are many cities in the US where renting a scooter to travel a couple miles is as fast as (often faster than) waiting for and riding in a car, and costs perhaps a third as much. But I can't speak for whether this solar car is anything other than hype; those are different matters.
This is a big part of it for me. The old Internet was full of individuals sharing deep passion--whether on a personal website or on a forum. There was a sense of connecting to another human being.
This is the only forum-style site I regularly interact with, and I must admit that I rarely try to remember another username here. The effect is that I interact with ideas, not people. And there is some deep connection between behaviors I might label as addiction and a felt sense of isolation.
The internet is still full of individuals sharing deep passion for all sorts of things, but only within the walls of invite-only communities you have to go out of your way to find (Discord servers, private forums) and/or make a financial commitment towards (Patreon).
Or at least it was, before LLM "enthusiasts" started leaking into these otherwise hermetic communities and overrunning formerly safe spaces with mass-produced low-effort content nobody wants to see, particularly when anyone else could prompt the exact same thing into existence.
For me the difference today is that most people sharing their passions are now doing for The Algorithm. It's a far cry from the scrappy days of the early web where people just posted stuff because they thought it was cool. I'm not saying their passion is any less, more just that is so much noise. People are now "creators" and are pressured to constantly create.
Why do you assume a hobby or interest still has a significant presence on the non-algorithmified open web?
For travel-related hobbies, for instance, there is no longer any kind of significant open-web scene where people just share stuff to help others or because it is cool. (Yes, you can set up your own blog, but pretty much none of your peers will ever see it.) The community might be using a variety of apps beyond your "like 5 websites", but all those apps are designed around phones and minimize text content, and so they are just as pathological as "sites with 'creators'".
I'm not sure what exactly a travel-related hobby app might even be for (other than e.g. a map and a calendar, but there are FOSS ones), but isn't this exactly demonstrating the "creator" mentality? You can make your blog as you like it with text, images, videos, etc. Share it with people in your social circle who are interested. Maybe others will find it too some day if you want it to be open. But if you can't send them a link, they're not really your peer, are they? And if they won't click a link, they weren't interested.
Let me give you long-haul bicycle travel as an example: back when there was an active blogging scene, people sharing route tips and bike-build breakdowns could be sure that a decent amount of other people would find it and benefit from it: the blogs got picked up by search engines and were readily findable, and there was still a culture of using the open web.
Today, no one you will see the content that you posted to help other people out. Google began deprioritizing personal blogs a decade ago already, and now a whole generation has come up that doesn't know the open web is a thing. When people look for tips in this hobby, it is overwhelmingly on phone apps like Komoot or PolarSteps, on the general image-based social media like YouTube or Instagram, or (already for an older-skewing crowd that still uses browsers) on the big for-profit website Bikepacking.com that grew by using its SEO-fu to wipe out the non-profit-driven scene.
There is a community around this hobby, one with a lot of IRL interaction, and people do enjoy that feeling of community. But claiming that people "aren't really your peer" if they don't use the old open web that we knew, is just cutting yourself off from that.
Ha, yes I wanted to keep my comment short without trying to cover every base, but figured I might get this comment. Of course such sites still exist, but still a different phenomena when that was the entire internet. There are a lot of interesting people who run YouTube channels that be so cool to see a GeoCities-type site from, for example.
We can talk about this on a legal or a moral basis. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll focus on the moral basis. If company A offloads some of its work to company B, and company B commits atrocities in a foreign company to keep costs down on said work, is company A not morally culpable if it continues to work with company B? Is it different if we think in terms of two people as opposed to two companies (and if so, why?)?
There's a way of saying "we need to acknowledge that it's probably bad when either 'side' does this, due to our commitment to a deeper desire for truth", and the original comment ended up sounding more like "Well, liberals did it too". I think what we aspire to here is the former, which is helpful; the latter is polarizing and gets us further from core principles.
FWIW, I have a few professor friends who are generally liberal but were required to write yearly personal diversity statements by their administrations, and knew they were rewarded for putting pathos and hardship in their stories. They hated everything about it but felt that it would set their careers back to speak out against it. I think it's very valuable to have unpolitical discussions about these things, align on deep values, and come to a deeper understanding of how we can support one another--rather than falling into camps and pointing fingers.
Not to get all philosophical, but what does "content of character" mean apart from actions and words? If anything I'd say content of character is something we must infer from actions and words (and yes, actions are far more important than words, though in a public-facing position, communication arguably becomes a form of action).
There is a world of difference between (1) a random individual collecting a few people's faces and voices and (2) a huge corporation nonconsensually collecting that information at a mass scale (and with location!) in an age when identity resolution is automated.
yeah like said Meta is probably not going to win this race but Apple could as it's privaccy focused and they could have as noted..blur out or anonymizes faces that aren't in your network. Apple already labels and tries to name faces it sees often in your photos and has done for years.
I would have much preferred if the rep had written a shorter document and reached out about things they were uncertain about. Instead thet wasted my and my team's time as we first tried to make sense of the document on good faith before realizing the problem.
I don't care if people use LLMs per se, but if this is functionally the result, then in this aspect of my work things would go much better if people did not use them. They are a great interface for talking to a machine, but due to the laziness they breed, they are a terrible interface for talking to other humans unless approached with a great deal of discipline.