I had an Xbox and it didn’t do that either!!!

I want everything wired, antennas and batteries usually don’t make that stuff any better

Yeah but it’s not hovering or rotating unsupported in the air. The box said it was going to do that stuff. I’m pretty sure this doesn’t even have any weird runes on it either

I think probably sand blasting everything around the airport with caustic dust is possibly, a bad idea… lots of people live in the approach or departure paths… and a lot of airports sit on bodies of water, so is this like Agent Orange 2.0?

I’ve been buying computer stuff for like 30 years and never once has any of it had any weird glowing stuff like on the box

What if it does that during takeoff and landing phases though.

So it doesn’t emit CO2, but it sprays drain cleaner out the back? 🤔

Oh wow does it come with glowing green computery looking stuff like in the picture

I love to disagree with things

When is the last time you demanded a government agency do something that wasn’t already their idea, and they did it

(picking up phone) Hello this is Sherlock speaking

No it’s am not

More than stuck on

This seems like a bad idea, to me

Why would they do that

I can hear this picture

give it time

This still seems too simplistic. You say you can’t know whether it’s right unless you know the topic, but that’s not a binary condition. I don’t think anyone “knows” a complex topic to its absolute limits. That would mean they had learned everything about it that could be learned, and there would be no possibility of there being anything else in the universe for them to learn about it.

An LLM can help fill in gaps, and you can use what you already know as well as credible resources (e g., textbooks) to vet its answer, just as you would use the same knowledge to vet your own theories. You can verify its work the same way you’d verify your own. The value is that it may add information or some part of a solution that you wouldn’t have. The risk is that it misunderstands something, but that risk exists for your own theories as well.

This approach requires skepticism. The risk would be that the person using it isn’t sufficiently skeptical, which is the same problem as relying too much on their own opinions or those of another person.

For example, someone studying statistics for the first time would want to vet any non-trivial answer against the textbook or the professor rather than assuming the answer is correct. Answer comes from themself, the student in the next row, or an LLM, doesn’t matter.

I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’ve used it to solve problems that would’ve taken days to figure out on my own, and my solutions might not have been as good.

I can tell whether it succeeded because its solutions either work, or they don’t. The problems I’m using it on have that property.

It’s already capable of doing a lot, and there is reason to expect it will get better over time. If we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that’s not possible, we will not be prepared.