I don't trust LLMs to give me numbers like this, and it's not just that it might make a mistake on the number or it might have garbage in its context - it also might just not understand the mildest nuance in its context or apply any common sense.
I recently asked what percentage of ice cream is air. It told me up to 100%. When I followed the sources, as I always do and not just with silly answers like that, the number in its context was indeed up to 100%. There's an industry term called overrun, measured in percentages. But 100% overrun means it's 50% air.
So why would I trust any of these numbers in this obviously LLM-generated and probably LLM-researched article?
I guess it is slightly clever, if you feel like slipping out posts, to make them anti-AI. Really blunts the effectiveness of criticism of putting slop out when the slop agrees directionally with the criticism.
I recently asked what percentage of ice cream is air. It told me up to 100%. When I followed the sources, as I always do and not just with silly answers like that, the number in its context was indeed up to 100%. There's an industry term called overrun, measured in percentages. But 100% overrun means it's 50% air.
So why would I trust any of these numbers in this obviously LLM-generated and probably LLM-researched article?
I guess it is slightly clever, if you feel like slipping out posts, to make them anti-AI. Really blunts the effectiveness of criticism of putting slop out when the slop agrees directionally with the criticism.