• JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Presumably such a site would be visually obvious as parody. Having it give jokey answers in as a caricature would be one thing. If you dressed it up as a professional legal advice service for opinions on criminal law from Alan Shore, that could be problematic.

    At a certain point of information sharing, we should want a high bar for the ones providing the answers. When asking nuanced questions, we should want for the answer to come from knowledge, not memory. I made an example in this other comment.

    I’m not sure I agree with your ‘right answer’ bit. Personally, I’d prefer dumb people to be protected in a similar way that I want the elderly protected from losing their savings from an email scam.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I promise you, the result of this will be unlimited free speech for corporations and their LLMs, with limited and regulated free speech for you. Save or favorite the comment.

      It’s the same “protect the children” anti free speech advocacy in a different wrapper, but more appealing to this audience because “llm bad”.

      They’re using your emotional response to not liking LLMs as a tool to trick you into giving away your rights.