61–70 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you call it instead?
"Makes stuff up." And it's us, the users, who have to realize this. I mean, I wouldn't blame OpenAI for this, at least not at this point, and the company will have to live with it, look how it can turn it into something useful instead, since there's no one to complain to.
I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
I'm not super familiar with ChatGPT internals, but there are plenty of ways to tack on uncertainty estimates to predictions of typical "large scale ML models" without touching Bayesian stuff (which only work for small scale academics problems). You can do simple parametric posteriors estimation or if all you have is infinite compute and don't even want to bother with anything "mathy", bootstrapping is the "scalable / easy" solution.
> All suggestions are welcome. Monetize it! Evil answer: Partner with an advertiser and sell https://api.opencagedata.com/geocode/v1/json as an ad space. This may be the first opportunity for an application/json-encoded advertisement. Nice answer: Partner with an actual phone lookup platform and respond with a 301 Moved Permanently at the endpoint.
I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
you could cross check this stuff too with yet more models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a vast chasm between "whoever wrote this article didn't think to link to a similar issue a year ago" and "the first incident was a malicious hoax".
[flagged]
I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
Whether or not the information that comes back from those searches is reliable is a whole other question.
I would love to learn what the latest research is into "factual correctness" detection. Presumably there are teams out there trying to solve that one?
That's quite the predicament. I hope OpenAI will listen, to this and to anyone else in a similar situation. I'm reminded of the cases of ChatGPT recommends random people's personal phone numbers for various services. But yeah, don't trust ChatGPT for anything. Just earlier today I tried my darnedest to convince it that 2 pounds of feathers doesn't weigh the same as 1 pound of bricks, and it just would not listen, pre…
I thought for sure that must be glitching, so just tried on my ChatGPT Plus account with a fresh thread, but nope: > does 2 pounds of feathers weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, two pounds of feathers weigh the same as one pound of bricks. The weight of an object is determined by its mass, and one pound of any object weighs the same as one pound of any other object. However, feathers are less dense than bricks,…
> does 2 pounds of bricks weigh more than 1 pound of bricks?
> No, 2 pounds of bricks do not weigh less or more than 1 pound of bricks. 2 pounds of bricks and 1 pound of bricks refer to the same unit of weight, which is a pound. Therefore, they weigh the same, which is one pound. The difference between them is only the quantity, not the weight.
> It's similar to saying that two one-dollar bills do not have more value than one five-dollar bill. Even though you have two bills in one case and one bill in the other case, the total value is the same.
ChatGPT gets the rules to the pokemon trading card game wrong. It will tell you you can use 4 energy a turn. Convincingly. Not sure how it hallucinates this. The rule is 1 per turn.
It correctly stated that they are, but when it went on to prove that this was the case, it generated a table of the frequencies of the individual letters in these two words, and the table looked like this.
Letter | Frequency in | Frequency in
| “pannekake” | “kannepake”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a | 2 | 2
e | 2 | 2
k | 2 | 2
n | 2 | 2
p | 2 | 2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a vast chasm between "whoever wrote this article didn't think to link to a similar issue a year ago" and "the first incident was a malicious hoax".
I don't understand the original comment to suggest that. Rather: it's a known issue. ChatGPT does nothing new, and certainly doesn't do it by itself -- it just rehashes what others have already written. Like Google might send you visitors for something that's not even present on your website because others link to you mentioning it. What the comment suggested was that they're now bringing this up again to get attenti…
If that's not an accusation of being malicious I don't know what could be.