undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAndrex2y ago0 comments

Maybe Google decides certain ingredients aren't fit for public consumption and changes the recipe in their "summary." Or maybe the FDA tells Google it has to do this.

On a mass scale, maybe 0.2% of people would double check the source page. The rest would be unknowingly influenced to eat "healthier" by Google.

Yes, this seems unlikely. But so has much in the last 5 years.

Why are we deliberately charging head-first into social man-in-the-middle attacks? We already don't trust each other enough. LLMs lie, and lie often. Why should we trust them for anything?

Would you be OK asking a LLM what food is safe for an infant, or a pet dog? Without checking the source?

0 comments

brookst2y ago

I think you’re saying that your concerns are moot because nobody would use LLMs the way you fear people will use LLMs?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsAndrex2y ago0 comments

Maybe Google decides certain ingredients aren't fit for public consumption and changes the recipe in their "summary." Or maybe the FDA tells Google it has to do this.

On a mass scale, maybe 0.2% of people would double check the source page. The rest would be unknowingly influenced to eat "healthier" by Google.

Yes, this seems unlikely. But so has much in the last 5 years.

Why are we deliberately charging head-first into social man-in-the-middle attacks? We already don't trust each other enough. LLMs lie, and lie often. Why should we trust them for anything?

Would you be OK asking a LLM what food is safe for an infant, or a pet dog? Without checking the source?