Will LLMs make finding answers online a thing of the past?
-
Right. How about csam, incest, cannibalism?
arguments like this are fucking stupid
-
That’s exactly what I’m worried about happening. What If one day there are hardly any sources left?
At this rate that day is not too distant, I'm affraid.
I was expecting either Huxley or Orwell to be right, not both.
-
Thanks for showing that you have no actual arguments.
LLMs are inherently bad for society in their current form. They have no real benefit. They push capital extraction and further increase the pressure on workers. They have insane energy requirements, insane hardware requirements. We are working on saving our planet and can absolutely not spare the massive amounts of energy required for this shit.
Thanks for showing that you have no actual arguments.
You did it first by jumping to "think of the children!" And analogizing running a program to cannibalism.
They have no real benefit.
No need to ban them, then. Nobody will use them if this is true.
They have insane energy requirements, insane hardware requirements.
I run them locally on my computer, I know this is factually incorrect through direct experience.
Personal experience aside, if running an LLM query really required "insane" energy and hardware expenditures then why are companies like Google so eager to do it for free? These are public companies whose mandates are to generate a profit. Whatever they're getting out of running those LLM queries must be worth the cost of running them.
We are working on saving our planet
I see you've switched from "think of the children!" To "think of the environment!"
-
That is an option, and undoubtedly some people will continue to do that. It’s just that the number of those people might go down in the future.
Some people like forums and such much more than LLMs, so that number probably won’t go down to zero. It’s just that someone has to write that first answer, so that eventually other people might benefit from it.
What if it’s a very new product and a new problem? Back in the old days, that would translate to the question being asked very quickly in the only place where you can do that - the forums. Nowadays, the first person to even discover the problem might not be the forum type. They might just try all the other methods first, and find nothing of value. That’s the scenario I was mainly thinking of.
I did suggest a possible solution to this - the AI search agent itself could post a question in a forum somewhere if has been unable to find an answer.
This isn't a feature yet of mainstream AI search agents but I've been following development and this sort of thing is already being done by hobbyists. Agentic AI workflows can be a lot more sophisticated than simple "do a search summarize results." An AI agent could even try to solve the problem itself - reading source code, running tests in a sandbox, and so forth. If it figures out a solution that it didn't find online, maybe it could even post answers to some of those unanswered forum questions. Assuming the forum doesn't ban AI of course.
Basically, I think this is a case of extrapolating problems without also extrapolating the possibilities of solutions. Like the old Malthusian scenario, where Malthus projected population growth without also accounting for the fact that as demand for food rises new technologies for making food production more productive would also be developed. We won't get to a situation where most people are using LLMs for answers without LLMs being good at giving answers.
-
Thanks for showing that you have no actual arguments.
You did it first by jumping to "think of the children!" And analogizing running a program to cannibalism.
They have no real benefit.
No need to ban them, then. Nobody will use them if this is true.
They have insane energy requirements, insane hardware requirements.
I run them locally on my computer, I know this is factually incorrect through direct experience.
Personal experience aside, if running an LLM query really required "insane" energy and hardware expenditures then why are companies like Google so eager to do it for free? These are public companies whose mandates are to generate a profit. Whatever they're getting out of running those LLM queries must be worth the cost of running them.
We are working on saving our planet
I see you've switched from "think of the children!" To "think of the environment!"
You just showed again that you have no actual arguments. You're using populism to "win" against factually correct and provable statements.
Using anecdotal evidence is a cheap trick and I believe you know it. It's not evidence at all. Numbers show that I'm right and you're wrong in this case.
"Think of the children" is used as a thought stopper by the political right to push their laws against humanity through. It isnt as smart as you think to wrongly ascribe it. I was right and showed it, you cant live with it. Thats okay.
-
You just showed again that you have no actual arguments. You're using populism to "win" against factually correct and provable statements.
Using anecdotal evidence is a cheap trick and I believe you know it. It's not evidence at all. Numbers show that I'm right and you're wrong in this case.
"Think of the children" is used as a thought stopper by the political right to push their laws against humanity through. It isnt as smart as you think to wrongly ascribe it. I was right and showed it, you cant live with it. Thats okay.
Using anecdotal evidence is a cheap trick and I believe you know it. It's not evidence at all. Numbers show that I'm right and you're wrong in this case.
So... got any?
"Think of the children" is used as a thought stopper by the political right to push their laws against humanity through.
I refer you back to your earlier comment analogizing LLMs to "csam".
-
arguments like this are fucking stupid
Glad you agree. Non arguments are not a good idea.
-
Using anecdotal evidence is a cheap trick and I believe you know it. It's not evidence at all. Numbers show that I'm right and you're wrong in this case.
So... got any?
"Think of the children" is used as a thought stopper by the political right to push their laws against humanity through.
I refer you back to your earlier comment analogizing LLMs to "csam".
You know I'm right and try to troll because you either dont like it or have an agenda. In both cases, thats a you problem.
-
I did suggest a possible solution to this - the AI search agent itself could post a question in a forum somewhere if has been unable to find an answer.
This isn't a feature yet of mainstream AI search agents but I've been following development and this sort of thing is already being done by hobbyists. Agentic AI workflows can be a lot more sophisticated than simple "do a search summarize results." An AI agent could even try to solve the problem itself - reading source code, running tests in a sandbox, and so forth. If it figures out a solution that it didn't find online, maybe it could even post answers to some of those unanswered forum questions. Assuming the forum doesn't ban AI of course.
Basically, I think this is a case of extrapolating problems without also extrapolating the possibilities of solutions. Like the old Malthusian scenario, where Malthus projected population growth without also accounting for the fact that as demand for food rises new technologies for making food production more productive would also be developed. We won't get to a situation where most people are using LLMs for answers without LLMs being good at giving answers.
This idea about automated forum posts and answers could work. However, a human would also need to verify that the generated solution actually solves a problem. There are still some pretty big ifs and buts in this thing, but I assume it could work. I just don’t think current LLMs are quite smart enough yet. It’s a fast moving target, and new capabilities are bing added on a daily basis, so it might not take very long until we get there.
-
You know I'm right and try to troll because you either dont like it or have an agenda. In both cases, thats a you problem.
So I take it you're not going to post those numbers, then.
-
So I take it you're not going to post those numbers, then.
Of course not. It's literally 5 words in a search engine.
-
At this rate that day is not too distant, I'm affraid.
I was expecting either Huxley or Orwell to be right, not both.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Interestingly, there’s an Intelligence Squared episode that explores that very point. As usual, there’s a debate, voting and both sides had some pretty good arguments. I’m convinced that Orwell and Huxley were correct about certain things. Not the whole picture, but specific parts of it.
-
Of course not. It's literally 5 words in a search engine.
...which you can't or won't do, apparently.
-
...which you can't or won't do, apparently.
I can and did, many times. I also wrote articles about it. I just wont do you the favor to post any of them here because I dislike your attitude. You're not open to debate. You're trying to use rhetoric tricks to get around arguments.
-
Glad you agree. Non arguments are not a good idea.
No, your argument is stupid. OF COURSE those things are bad, its stupid to think that's what I implied.
-
I can and did, many times. I also wrote articles about it. I just wont do you the favor to post any of them here because I dislike your attitude. You're not open to debate. You're trying to use rhetoric tricks to get around arguments.
I just wont do you the favor to post any of them
Why comment in the first place if you're unwilling to back it up?
This is a public forum, you're not just answering me here.
-
LLMs are awesome in their knowledge until you start to hear its answers to stuff you already know and makes you wonder if anything was correct.
This applies equally well to human-generated answers to stuff.
True, the difference is that with humans it's usually more public, it is easier for someone to call bullshit. With LLMs the bullshit is served with the intimacy of embarrassing porn so is less likely to see any warnings.
-
I just wont do you the favor to post any of them
Why comment in the first place if you're unwilling to back it up?
This is a public forum, you're not just answering me here.
For the reasons I mentioned in the comment before. It's easy to get that information and you're being disingenuous. Since you're still going on and going around the same argument free bullshit, I will now get rid of you. Good luck trolling someone else.
-
As LLMs become the go-to for quick answers, fewer people are posting questions on forums or social media. This shift could make online searches less fruitful in the future, with fewer discussions and solutions available publicly. Imagine troubleshooting a tech issue and finding nothing online because everyone else asked an LLM instead. You do the same, but the LLM only knows the manual, offering no further help. Stuck, you contact tech support, wait weeks for a reply, and the cycle continues—no new training data for LLMs or new pages for search engines to index. Could this lead to a future where both search results and LLMs are less effective?
Probably, however I will not be doing that because LLM models are dogshit and hallucinate bullshit half the time. I wouldn't trust a single fucking thing that a LLM provides.
-
No, your argument is stupid. OF COURSE those things are bad, its stupid to think that's what I implied.
You made a blanket statement and now you're angry because someone called you out on it. I get that. But i dont care. Please dont make blanket statements like that. Thats not a good way of debating stuff.
Of course outlawing of stuff is good in certain cases. And LLMs (and AI in general) as a public tool, exploited for profit, isn't good for humanity. It sucks energy like crazy, produces bullshit results, diseducates people and further benefits the capitalist class.
It's just not okay to have that. I would have gone with an argument that goes "but how about for personal use on your own computer?" Then I would say I can see that being okay, as long as it doesnt permanently increase everyones personal power usage because that is the same as if you had giant centralized AIs.
See? You can argue against my point without making self defeating statements.
