Users report safety and liability concerns with passive LLM use
5 Sep 18 3:48 PM · 7d ago · 1 comment · 1 source · development 5 of 5
Comments raise concerns about LLM behaviors that could harm systems or data, and note that companies may retain human workers for accountability and liability reasons even if automation improves.
“Turning off your brain with LLMs is how you get fired…LLMs are dangerous and if for some reason you are stuck with using them, do NOT ever turn your brain off.”
VCFundedGenYerDan Luu Developer and essayistNiklas Gruhn Analyst/commenter on LLM use patterns
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 23 voices · verbatim
-
> there will still be a transitionary period in which employees have realized that the LLM is good enough but employers have not We are currently witnessing employers laying off employees based on the false belief that LLMs can do the employees' jobs. Employers are so ready to believe that LLMs are good enough that they're jumping the gun. I don't…
-
Turning off your brain with LLMs is how you get fired.Even with small things, you need to be at the wheel. The other day I had to stop copilot from literally deleting the file I was working on. Why did it choose to go down that route? I don't know, but I nixed and reported the chat once it did that.LLMs are dangerous and if for some reason you are…
-
Currently the people pushing hard for LLM use are the corporations, because they want to remove the employees. They're going to be watching real close for any sign that the employees are now redundant. There'll be a "just in case" window when the employer isn't sure that just removing the human will work out, but I doubt it'll be a large one.
-
You are jumping straight to paperclips, but you can't get there, because that's far past society's breaking point. Datacenters will be burning and CEOs will be getting lynched in the streets way by the time unemployment hits 20%.
-
Only if we get a move on before policing is automated.
-
If we hold all else equal it is very very bad for people. However an economy that works without people is also a description of the post scarcity dream. The problem is that if we keep making "jobs" the way anyone gets the benefit of the economy and no one has one we end up with a disaster rather than liberation. We can't keep pushing tech progress…
-
Yup. If the robots are ever cheaper and more efficient than human labor, then the robots can just build the private jets and mansions for the billionaires directly, no human workers required. And if the humans complain about being hungry, then arm the robots. The assumption that you _need_ humans to run an economy is based on the idea that humans…
-
> And then, when everyone is laid off, who is going to buy a company's product? Another company. With sufficiently autonomous entities, you can make the economy work without people, it's just not very good for people.
-
And then, when everyone is laid off, who is going to buy a company's product? That's the catch 22, even in the case where the LLMs work, they do not.
-
Hasn't this basically always been an excuse used to justify a layoff they wanted to do anyway? All the ones I read about were basically corrections after pandemic over hiring with a veneer of "because AI" in the press release.
-
You're describing a universe where a sufficiently capable AI decides of its own volition to fuck off, except in the worst circumstances. That's not what we're building. We're laser focused on having the algorithmic social media feed, but more addictive.
-
Automated and scaled up, without cutting corners. They want to believe it is about policing riots. But at that level of collapse it will be about policing people with nothing to lose taking long stretches of power grid that were live just before.
-
> One where you don't constantly fear going hungry? One where all problems would be more effectively solved without my involvement, and if I insisted on involvement, my main contribution would be inefficiency.
-
What kind of a world? One where you don't constantly fear going hungry? Or maybe I've described what I'm talking about poorly and there is some misunderstanding here.
-
They are also laser focused on buying more RAM than they can buy power supplies for. We should get better at using the logic of guardrails-adding panics to ensure more refusals, there I agree. Although it is not about just LLMs, it is about giga-corporate-friendly culture in general. And I agree that the boring-world outcome is not the primary…
-
> We are currently witnessing employers laying off employees based on the false belief that LLMs can do the employees' jobs. I've seen employers lay off 20% of the workforce, and then be surprised when they see AI bills that are higher than the salaries of the people that they laid off. At the same time, it's extremely difficult to be a junior…
-
But would it be all problems or all _scale-friendly_ problems? Getting a 3D printer and access to a model repository does not solve all your problems solvable by a small piece of plastic, only those someone has already formulated. A benevolent automated takeover of supplying the obvious necessities and requested luxuries would need to work under a…
-
> We can't keep pushing tech progress alone and hoping society figures out the rest. We need to work on society first before the tech progress can be beneficial for humanity. … and of course it is impossible to work on society _first_, either, last half a millenium it has always been work on society around nudging economical implications…
-
This is why I am skeptical of something like UBI taking off since it presupposes that those in power think the masses deserve not just to live but basic dignity in doing so. Under the current economic climate, this does not align with the goals of creating more capital, more wealth for those in power—which has been basically the only metric…
-
The bet being placed by the actual people making this decision, is that the current CEOs will be in a different industry faster than this problem becomes visible enough. Whether seniors will be redundant is the company's problems for after the stock options vest.
-
> The question then is how do companies get new senior developers, if the juniors are laid off? There's no easy answer to that. The bet being placed is that the seniors will be redundant before this becomes a problem.
-
As usual, future comes non-evenly. Some places will see it earlier, others will watch and take notes. Both authoritarians and democrats.
-
I think I'd last a year or two in that kind of world before killing myself.
All 5 developments of Dan Luu warns that "brain-off" LLM-assisted work is… →
LobstersHacker NewsNewswires