71–80 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That's another apparently evidence-free accusation. Is there some undisclosed bad blood here?
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…
That's basically what the new Bing is. It's a large language model that can run searches, and then use what comes back from those searches to generate answers to questions. 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…
This is not a service we provide. It is not a service we have ever provided, nor a service we have any plans to provide. Indeed, it is a not a service we are technically capable of providing. I'm curious: why not? It seems like a lot of people would be interested in this if you could figure out how to provide it.
> 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.
uh, you mean stalker / scammer platform? This would be a major privacy violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's basically what the new Bing is. It's a large language model that can run searches, and then use what comes back from those searches to generate answers to questions. 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…
AFAIK, Bing AI is not itself an LLM, but rather a wrapper around ChatGPT, which itself is based on GPT-3, which is based on the GPT architecture, which is (roughly speaking) half of a transformer architecture, which is based on encoder/decoder neural nets which are based on ...
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 think "Explainable AI" is a related research direction, but perhaps not popular for language models.
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…
Agreed. But then it begs the question: what purpose does ChatGPT serve (other than for entertainment purposes or cheating on your HS/college exam)? If you have to verify its information by other means, then you're not really saving much effort.
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…
Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. I am hoping that in a year from now people will be more skeptical of what they hear from conversational AI. But perhaps that is optimistic of me.
Providing detailed information on the usage of a service that has never existed is a brand new kind of incorrect that is carelessly causing the rest of us grief.
This is not a service we provide. It is not a service we have ever provided, nor a service we have any plans to provide. Indeed, it is a not a service we are technically capable of providing. I'm curious: why not? It seems like a lot of people would be interested in this if you could figure out how to provide it.
you mean like scammers and stalkers? (ok, and probably Meta)