Large language model technology cannot drive a car, because it will sometimes crash the car.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of February 2023. True: as of then, no LLM-based system had been shown to drive a car reliably (e.g. no deployed or validated LLM-driven vehicle), and authoritative sources point to unreliability or occasional catastrophic errors as a barrier. Mostly true: LLMs could not drive cars then, but the stated reason (it would sometimes crash) is only one of several main reasons, or there were small research demos that do not amount to driving a car. Mixed: LLM-based systems were showing meaningful driving ability in research, so 'can't' is only partly right. Mostly false: LLM-type systems were already doing safe driving in controlled settings, and the claim exaggerates a real reliability concern. False: as of February 2023, LLM-type technology was demonstrably driving cars at or above the reliability of deployed systems.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Evaluation of Large Language Models for Decision Making in Autonomous Driving arXiv (preprint)
“Recently, there has been a number of studies that use LLMs to perform autonomous driving [10, 7, 12, 4, 9].”
-
E2 Evaluation of Large Language Models for Decision Making in Autonomous Driving arXiv (preprint)
“Furthermore, to conduct a Proof of Concept (POC) for the feasibility of implementing these abilities in actual vehicles, we developed a system that uses LLMs to drive a vehicle.”
-
E3 Evaluation of Large Language Models for Decision Making in Autonomous Driving arXiv (preprint)
“Due to the safety concerns associated with making lane changes on public roads, as in simulations, this experiment was conducted in a private area.”
-
E4 Evaluation of Large Language Models for Decision Making in Autonomous Driving arXiv (preprint)
“Previous research has not thoroughly investigated the accuracy of LLMs in spatial-aware decision making through quantitative experiments.”
Reasoning
The only evidence is an undated preprint. It says a number of studies used LLMs for autonomous driving and describes its own proof-of-concept vehicle test held in a private area [E1][E2][E3]. It does not show what LLM-based driving looked like as of February 2023, or whether unreliability was a recognised barrier at that time, so the criteria cannot be applied.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Large language model technology cannot drive a car, because it will sometimes crash the car.” (said February 2023). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_55f3d6ba1d45, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_55f3d6ba1d45
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky
-
Resolved true
“We learned that that's false, but we did not learn that you can have a thing that can redesign a tree and build an AI much smarter than itself, that builds an AI much smarter than itself, and that…”
-
Mostly true
“I was a passionate noticer of the human brain not being homogenous, and was therefore unpleasantly surprised by transformers scaling as well as they did.”
-
Mostly true
“First of all, you realize in principle that the task of minimizing losses on predicting human text does not stop when you’re as smart as a human, right?”
-
Mostly true
“Transformers are the main thing like that.”
-
Mostly true
“Because the basic paradigm of machine learning that we are presently operating under is that you can have the loss function, but only for things you can evaluate.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.