The biggest question for me about large language model interfaces - ChatGPT, the new Bing, Google's Bard - is this:
How long does it take for regular users (as opposed to experts, or people who just try them once or twice) to convince themselves that these tools frequently makes things up that aren't accurate?
And assuming they figure this out, how does knowing it affect the way they use these tools?
One argument here is that people will blindly trust any chatbot that supports their previous biases
Is that cynicism justified?
What happens when the chatbot speaks against their biases? In particular, what if it both counters their biases AND does so in a way that is demonstrably factually incorrect?
We are already seeing furious complaints from some corners that ChatGPT has a liberal bias - how does that affect how those complainants trust and use these tools?
@glyph My question remains: if a right-leaning person encounters replies from ChatGPT that directly counters their existing beliefs (and which they can fact check through other sources), do they stop believing that ChatGPT is an infallible source of information?
Even if their conclusion is "It's a conspiracy! The chatbot has been neutered!", does it still provide some level of protection for them in terms of helping them understand that these things are deeply fallible?
Simon Willison
Glyph