https://darwinawards.com/ -- And yes, there is a quite meaningful difference. I know that some people are safety freaks, but I for one, will not grief for a single person that managed to kill themselves by following LLM instructions. There is a point of low IQ where we as a society can't really help anymore.
Moral considerations aside, I'm really skeptical of the assumption that following LLM instructions = low IQ.
As always, HN is a very biased audience. Most of us have probably read about how LLMs are the best bullshitters in the world, and we've seen a lot examples like this that prove how little LLMs can be trusted.
But in the general population? I'd bet there's plenty of intelligent people who haven't had the same exposure to LLM critiques and might trust their output out of ignorance rather than lack of intelligence.
I agree, and I think there might be an argument to be made that people with higher IQ are more prone to believing in (gramatically) well-written texts from authoritative-looking sources.
After all, people with higher IQ are used to reading books and believing them, whereas those with supposedly lower IQ tend to dismiss books and experts, instead believing in their own real-world experiences.
My only issue with concepts such as the Darwin Awards is that they do not reflect upon whether or not the deceased has reproduced. To attribute darwinism to lethal mistakes is meaningless unless we know whether or not the deceased has a child.
Some person with children who dies on an idiotic way has done more for evolution than the still alive and childless me.
Darwin Awards rewards people who are no longer able to reproduce, not taking into account any previous offspring. It'd be pretty hard to discover whether the subject of a random newspaper article had children or not.
So, if you drink and drive and kill a child, is it your responsibility, or is it the fault of alcohol being legal or vehicles not being mandates safe enough? This modern way of dealing with moral hazards is making me sad and afraid of others. After all, who knows whom they are going to blame for their own inability to perform sensible actions?
More like if you drink and then take paracetamol for the headache, the pharma corporation should warn you against performing this seemingly sensible action.
> The bottle being labeled is sufficient, just as the LLM being labeled as sometimes wrong is sufficient.
Labeling LLMs as "sometime wrong" is like labeling drugs as "sometimes have side effects, especially when mixing". It's a truism, such label would be completely useless. You need to take the drug anyway, so knowing that "some side effects exist" doesn't change anything. And often you also do need to take 2-3-4 drugs at same time, so the mixing clause is not helping either.
It took us many decades to build the system around drugs that today you take as granted. Drugs are studied very carefully, with all observed side effects listed explicitly. Drugs compatibility is a big topic and all new drugs are checked in combination with common-use drugs.
At the other end of equation awareness of side effects and mixing was increased dramatically both among doctors and patients, who were previously completely oblivious of them. Mere 100 years ago people were prescribed heroin against cough. Only 60 years ago the thalidomide disaster happened.
If all you can say to people destroyed by Kevadon is "you are at fault, the bottle said CAUTION: new drug", then I'm afraid we see this too differently.
