This should be interesting: If they don't catch some hallucination they may be liable and can be sued…
SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
51–60 of 85 posts
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eeehhh? Im not sure truth* exists, but there are things that we accept as true and things that are so fundamental that it doesn't occur to us to question them - these things are inherently political. Just to be clear - not using that word to refer to the specific species of polarized discourse that we got in the states, talking about the nature of power and the human condition. Curious what you consider to be true th…
Does shared values here just mean definitions? Such as the number of carbon atoms in a mole, 5+9 in base 10, the average number of protons in a carbon atom is a specific value, and leptons exist?
No, shared values is referring to the moral/emotional stuff, I find it more useful when trying to bridge the gap in a pretty politically charged environment to reconnect on simple things like wanting other people to be happy and healthy.
Are those true things? Good candidates, I like 'leptons exist'. Do you mind if we just gently ignore the math one? Feels like inviting the whole 'is math invented or discovered' thing.
1) carbon atoms in a mol - a mol is a counting number so it seems tautological to declare this one a truth
2) pass :)
3) this seems like a good candidate but it also seems to reduce truth to just the things we measure and only to the extent that we can be accurate (I'm also assuming you meant neutrons, protons are static by specie). Purely hypothetically there could be a whole heap of unusually heavy or light carbon out there that would disprove one or another of our theories. To put it another way; is the average number of apples that a trees grows in a year 'true'? It'll change year after year after all. I'm fine with a definition of truth that implies error bars and best efforts but I feel it falls short of the colloquial definition.
4) I think the pure observation that a thing somewhere exists is probably the closest to true, the rebuttals against that would all be self consuming anyway. The specific claim that leptons exist seems a little more fraught though - we could conceivably come to another conclusion if that better fit the facts.
So, can we call these things true if our concept is potentially incomplete or incorrect?
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good to have third parties (apart from Open AI) that assess the quality of Open AI results. It's the way audits work, it has to be independent... Also, third parties are essential to compare the results from ChatGPT with the results of other LLMs. These are important checks to assess the robustness of OpenAI results!
I can't help but notice your accounts only activity before this post was praising another giskard.ai submission a few months ago. Anything you'd like to disclose?
You should assume everything posted on the internet has an ulterior motive. Relying on disclosures simply allows actual bad actors to avoid scrutiny.
(And no one cares that you used to work at Microsoft or whatever).
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#54$10 bucks says this just uses the GPT4 API to go over gpt chat.
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#55Looks a bit like snakeoil to me. A lot of companies now spinning up simple demos with opaque backends, making huge claims they’ve solved X hard problem for/with AI, then saying “trust us” and “join our waitlist” without hard details or facts to show for it. If you could detect hallucinations/biases etc that easily, don’t you think OpenAI would’ve worked on something like this?
> don’t you think OpenAI would’ve worked on something like this?
Along this line of thought: was it a massive oversight for them to not train the model to say "math detected, let me pass that to a solver" instead of trying to guess what token should come next in a math problem?
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#56Looks a bit like snakeoil to me. A lot of companies now spinning up simple demos with opaque backends, making huge claims they’ve solved X hard problem for/with AI, then saying “trust us” and “join our waitlist” without hard details or facts to show for it. If you could detect hallucinations/biases etc that easily, don’t you think OpenAI would’ve worked on something like this?
> don’t you think OpenAI would’ve worked on something like this? Along this line of thought: was it a massive oversight for them to not train the model to say "math detected, let me pass that to a solver" instead of trying to guess what token should come next in a math problem?
There's a million categories of problem you could ask an LLM to try to solve. You'd need a million solvers…
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#57This is like saying, "I've developed a new compass for a deep space probe to help it find North!" Our society is actively declaring that falsehoods are truth, and should be celebrated. We're hallucinating ourselves. All this software does is make sure LLMs hallucinate with us.
Such as?
There were lots of good examples during COVID. Remember that you don't need to wear masks, because washing your hands is enough (and we need to save the masks for doctors, but we're afraid to say that, because it will cause a run on masks). Remember that staying 6 feet apart is a magic distance over which COVID cannot cross (or maybe 1 meter, truth depends on the country you live in). Remember that you can't eat inside a restaurant, but you can eat outside, and it's okay for the restaurant to build partial walls around their outdoor spaces to make them more comfortable. Remember that COVID definitely could not have come from a lab leak, and it's racist to even suggest it might have happened. Never mind that the scientist who started the anti-lab-leak open letter was himself heavily funded for GoF research, and he refused to sign his own letter for political reasons.
I don't claim to know the answers to all of the questions (and I certainly don't know where COVID came from), but clearly there are plenty of cases where dubious statements were strongly enshrined as "True" in a way that required major online players to suppress alternative beliefs as "False".
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don’t you think OpenAI would’ve worked on something like this? Along this line of thought: was it a massive oversight for them to not train the model to say "math detected, let me pass that to a solver" instead of trying to guess what token should come next in a math problem?
There's a million categories of problem you could ask an LLM to try to solve. You'd need a million solvers…
OpenAI plugins can connect with a growing number of things. Zapier is one, which is already several thousand functions.
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a million categories of problem you could ask an LLM to try to solve. You'd need a million solvers…
OpenAI plugins can connect with a growing number of things. Zapier is one, which is already several thousand functions.
Can you give some example recipes?
Re: SafeGPT: New tool to detect LLMs' hallucinations, biases and privacy issues
#60How does this work? Does anyone know? And for a large swats of things, how can it possibly work? It’s not possible to say if or if not it is hallucinating code for almost all code and apis, for instance. And I see similar issues with many fields outside pure facts. With privacy issues as well.
We are a team of engineers & researchers on AI Alignment & Safety, we're investigating multiple methods, including metamorphic testing, human feedback, benchmarks with external data sources, and LLM explainability methods. Currently, fact checking works on straight facts. It does a Google Search and uses LLMs to shorten it. Once it has the short version, it will compare the short results with the answer provided by C…
> Currently, fact checking works on straight facts.
Wow, you guys have a database of all the facts?
> It does a Google Search and uses LLMs to shorten it.
Oh...
...actually, this is an empirical fact checker. I wouldn't call it "fact-based", as it's epistemologically an absurd statement, but "empirical fact checking" sounds good and presents an idea that is very close to how humans verify information in the first place - by checking multiple sources and searching for correlation.
For what it's worth, I think your approach makes sense. Good luck.