Never did this before, so I was asking Q in the AWS docs how to do it.
It refused to help, as it didn't answer security related questions.
thank.
one of my questions about a login form also tripped a harassment flag
I suspect instead the people training these models have identified areas of questioning where their model is 99% right, but because the 1% wrong is incredibly costly they dodge the entire question.
Would you want your LLM to give out any legal advice, or medical advice, or can-I-eat-this-mushroom advice, if you knew due to imperfections in your training process, it sometimes recommended people put glue in their pizza sauce?
So sure, the LLM occasionally pranks someone, in a way similar to how random Internet posts do; it is confidently wrong, in a way similar to how most text on the Internet is confidently wrong because content marketers don't give a damn about correctness, that's not what the text is there for. As much as this state of things pains me, general population has mostly adapted.
Meanwhile, people who would appreciate a model that's 99% right on things where the 1% is costly, rightfully continue to ignore Gemini and other models by companies too afraid to play in the field for real.
A random person on the Internet often has surrounding context to help discern trustworthiness. A researcher can also query multiple sources to determine how much there is concensus about.
You can't do that with LLMs.
I cannot stress strongly enough that direct comparisons between LLMs and experts on the Internet are inappropriate.
In this context, I very much agree. But I'd like to stress that "experts on the Internet" is not what 99% of the users read 99% of the time, because that's not what search engines surface by default. When you make e.g. food or law or health-related queries, what you get back isn't written by experts - it's written by content marketers. Never confuse the two.
> A researcher can also query multiple sources to determine how much there is concensus about.
> You can't do that with LLMs.
A person like that will know LLMs hallucinate, and query multiple sources and/or their own knowledge, and/or even re-query the LLM several times. Such people are not in danger - but very much annoyed when perfectly reasonable queries get rejected on the grounds of "safety".
What is the consensus on liability in case of regular web search? Your comment made me realize that I never thought much about it in 20+ years of using the Internet; I kind of always assumed it's all on the user.
Have you never noticed those "google has removed some results to comply with the DMCA" notices?