Well stated and explained. I’m not an AI researcher but I develop with LLMs quite a lot right now.

Hallucination is a huge problem we face when we’re trying to use LLMs for non-fiction. It’s a little bit like having a friend who can lie straight-faced and convincingly. You cannot distinguish whether they are telling you the truth or they’re lying until you rely on the output.

I think one of the nearest solutions to this may be the addition of extra layers or observer engines that are very deterministic and trained on only extremely reputable sources, perhaps only peer reviewed trade journals, for example, or sources we deem trustworthy. Unfortunately this could only serve to improve our confidence in the facts, not remove hallucination entirely.

It’s even feasible that we could have multiple observers with different domains of expertise (i.e. training sources) and voting capability to fact check and subjectively rate the LLMs output trustworthiness.

But all this will accomplish short term is to perhaps roll the dice in our favor a bit more often.

The perceived results from the end users however may significantly improve. Consider some human examples: sometimes people disagree with their doctor so they go see another doctor and another until they get the answer they want. Sometimes two very experienced lawyers both look at the facts and disagree.

The system that prevents me from knowingly stating something as true, despite not knowing, without some ability to back up my claims is my reputation and my personal values and ethics. LLMs can only pretend to have those traits when we tell them to.

Damn, I’d even works on mobile

The bible is not univocal. So saying “pick up a bible” to understand his views perhaps includes killing those who wear mixed fabrics and giving women instructions for abortions. Maybe it also includes killing his firstborn son whenever the voices say he should. Or maybe he doesn’t think those parts mean what they say, but other parts do?

Apologetics is an amazing thing! You’ll never guess how that one thing doesn’t mean what you think it means, and I’m the sole authority to tell you why!

I’ve heard a lot of people having this problem. Airbnb is next to useless, even with their guarantee.

Prices goes up, other hotels are booked solid, there are fewer options and travelers are left in the cold.

A big brand would be less likely to risk their reputation over $50 or $100/night difference if there’s some new big event in the area

There are a few things humans (and thus a healthy society) require for survival. Water, food, shelter.

When we start to point unadulterated VC backed capitalism at those resources, I think we give up something in our society and culture that we don’t actually want to give away.

I travel a lot worldwide and have used Airbnb quite a few times. However I’m now on the side of “Airbnb is evil”.

A couple years ago had a horrific experience in a villa and Airbnb customer support didn’t give a rats ass. Fortunately, my bank did and my credit card chargeback for $4,000 was successful. While I was going through that experience I came across a multitude of communities of travelers who have had equally horrific, oftentimes more horrific experiences with Airbnb where they’ve failed to step in and assist in any way.

Random dudes who own houses are on average unqualified in the hospitality business and not incentivized by maintaining a brand reputation. There are so many issues caused by shitty Airbnb hosts that hotels - real hotels - just don’t suffer from.

So now we have this situation where a lot of spaces are allocated to hotel businesses, more space is allocated to residential housing, And any random dude who can qualify for a mortgage can take a house off the market, fill it for 10 or 15 days out of the month, and keep both a domicile unused for a resident and a hotel room empty.

This is one of the few areas where I think hotel regulations are smart.