I see the strength of LLMs as something that is for regular people to interact with. Not so much for automation of paperwork in a work setting although that is one application.
E.g. Sometimes older people don’t interact with technology well. They only see buttons and menus with very brief labels on them, which can be daunting. They’re afraid of hitting the wrong thing. Often they don’t submit forms online because they don’t want to make a mistake. With many companies/organisations using online websites as a big part of their customer facing presence, older people get alienated.
An AI that converses to guide them and answer any questions would make technology more accessible.
I see the strength of LLMs as something that is for regular people to interact with. […] E.g. Sometimes older people don’t interact with technology well.
I think this argument is a bit flawed. If the main benefit of LLMs is facilitating the use of technology for the older generation, that, having not grown up as immersed in technology as we are today, is not as well versed in its use, then does this benefit not disappear when that older generation dies out and the new “older generation” will be those of us who have grown up with technology and are thus proficient in it? Why then do we still need this facilitator at that point?
In fact, i would take this line of thinking one step further: What happens when the new younger generation grows up with LLMs constantly facilitating their interfacing with technology? Will they perhaps become dependent on LLMs, having had no necessity to learn how to interact with technology without the LLM interface? Does this not just mean that LLMs will be self-perpetuating the need for their own existence? Is there not a risk that one day the skill to use technology without the crutch of LLMs will be lost altogether?
This is a risk vs reward question: Does the reward of convenience outweigh the risk of atrophy of certain skills? Of course this is basically a rhetorical question because i know what the historical answer of our societies to this question has always been, for any such new technology. It has always ended up being yes. And inevitably, we are going to end up embracing this new technology too, in some form or another, just like we did all the others in the past. That is just the way these things go.
I see the strength of LLMs as something that is for regular people to interact with. Not so much for automation of paperwork in a work setting although that is one application.
E.g. Sometimes older people don’t interact with technology well. They only see buttons and menus with very brief labels on them, which can be daunting. They’re afraid of hitting the wrong thing. Often they don’t submit forms online because they don’t want to make a mistake. With many companies/organisations using online websites as a big part of their customer facing presence, older people get alienated.
An AI that converses to guide them and answer any questions would make technology more accessible.
I think this argument is a bit flawed. If the main benefit of LLMs is facilitating the use of technology for the older generation, that, having not grown up as immersed in technology as we are today, is not as well versed in its use, then does this benefit not disappear when that older generation dies out and the new “older generation” will be those of us who have grown up with technology and are thus proficient in it? Why then do we still need this facilitator at that point?
In fact, i would take this line of thinking one step further: What happens when the new younger generation grows up with LLMs constantly facilitating their interfacing with technology? Will they perhaps become dependent on LLMs, having had no necessity to learn how to interact with technology without the LLM interface? Does this not just mean that LLMs will be self-perpetuating the need for their own existence? Is there not a risk that one day the skill to use technology without the crutch of LLMs will be lost altogether?
This is a risk vs reward question: Does the reward of convenience outweigh the risk of atrophy of certain skills? Of course this is basically a rhetorical question because i know what the historical answer of our societies to this question has always been, for any such new technology. It has always ended up being yes. And inevitably, we are going to end up embracing this new technology too, in some form or another, just like we did all the others in the past. That is just the way these things go.