@lproven@social.vivaldi.net @xs4me2@mastodon.social @reading_recluse@c.im 1. Paper from nearly 2 years ago. A lot has changed. Not to mention the 'test' the author (can't find their name, sorry) did is pretty dumb. It's much better to use an API, where you can control the full input pipeline to ensure the vendor isn't adding hidden instructions without your knowledge. 2. I already addressed the point in my previous comment - it's on the user to verify that tools have correct output. Relying on an LLM to do the reading in one's stead is a recipe for disaster. You haven't said anything about YOUR use-case, experience, or the tests you tried. I'm genuinely curious, what do you imagine using an LLM is like? The reason I ask is because a lot of the criticism and panicking (sometimes crossing into outright disrespect and bigotry) I see online comes from an assumption that using an LLM is predicated on turning off one's brain and taking the output at face value... something that we shouldn't be doing with any software anyway. I guess put another way: I don't believe that the problems people attribute to LLMs are specific to LLMs. How many instances were there where management/ execs took Excel output as fact, when the formulas were set up wrong? These statistical models are no different.