How much of a post are you comfortable for AI to write?
As a reader, each whiff of LLM usage is a red flag. If the writer used it, it’s highly probable that I should use another LLM to summarize it.
And if the final copy used it, surely previous stages used it even more, with all that implies. (I assume it’s not the moment to go into that)
As a writer, it’s symmetric. Why should I expect readers to spend effort that I didn’t? Even if they do, how can I be sure that there wasn’t a drift from my original intended meaning?
Since you’re the only one mentioning LLMs I thought I’d ask a couple of things I’d love to understand. Maybe you can point me somewhere to learn more.
Forecasting is supposed to help us prepare for the future. I just learnt that LLMs seem to be increasingly be used for forecasting—turns out that they’re surprisingly good at it. And LLMs-for-forecasting are used for AI safety work.
This sounds to me very close to assigning a suspected criminal to guide the team of investigators that are investigating the suspected crime.
Furthermore, I hear that this is admitted to be risky some years in the future. While also admitting that we don’t know how the current AI is already so surprisingly good at it. Why isn’t it considered to be risky right now?
Even further, I hear that the reason LLMs are used is because there’s not enough humans to work on this. But given the circularity of these things, I’ll bet that the use of LLMs is also making it difficult for new humans to grow into the job. So this would paint a future of better LLMs forecasting for less humans. Is this so?
In all, this sounds to me like a doom machine that will only fail if forecasting turns out by sheer luck to be useless and/or LLMs turn out by sheer luck to go nowhere.
Or in other words, AI safety work with a good chance of making the problem worse by spawning a double agent.
What am I getting wrong? Where can I learn more?