181–190 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That lies with the people who uncritically accept what they are told. That's partly true. Just as much fault lies with the people who market it as "intelligence" to those who uncritically accept what they are told.
This is displayed directly under the input prompt: ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.
Genuine question: why have these models all been trained to sound so confident? Is it not possible to have rewarded models that announced their own ignorance? Or is even that question belying an "intelligence" view of these models that isn't accurate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't lie like a duck. It unintentionally says falsehoods. Lying is intentional.
That's irrelevant to whether it lies like a duck or not. The expression "if it X like a duck" means precisely that we should judge a thing to be a duck or not, based on it having the external appereance and outward activity of a duck, and ignoring any further subleties, intent, internal processes, qualia, and so on. In other words, "it lies like a duck" means: if it produces things that look like lies, it is lying, a…
Hallucinates is a far more accurate word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A person who is mistaken looks like they're lying. That doesn't mean they're actually lying. That's the thing people are trying to point out. You can't look at something that looks like it's lying and conclude that it's lying, because intent is an intrinsic part of what it means to lie.
Even for that, you'd be surprised: (1) get oneself into or out of a situation by lying. "you lied your way on to this voyage by implying you were an experienced crew" (2) (of a thing) present a false impression. "the camera cannot lie"
2) "the camera cannot lie" - cameras have no intent?
I feel like I'm missing something from those definitions that you're trying to show me? I don't see how they support your implication that one can ignore intent when identifying a lie. (It would help if you cited the source you're using.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that professor who fed student essays to ChatGPT and asked if it wrote them. Mostly ChatGPT would reply yes, and the professor proceeded to fail the students.
Funnily enough chatgpt had no more idea about that than about these legal cases, it lives in a state of perpetual hallucination and making stuff up is its only mode of operation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. It was given a sequence of words and tasked with producing a subsequent sequence of words that satisfy with high probability the constraints of the model. It did that admirably. It's not its fault, or in my opinion OpenAI's fault, that the output is being misunderstood and misused by people who can't be bothered understanding it and project their own ideas of how it should function…
Whether a statement is true or false doesn’t depend on the mechanism generating the statement. We should hold these models (or more realistically, their creators) to the same standard as humans. What do we do with a human that generates plausible-sounding sentences without regard for their truth? Let’s hold the creators of these models accountable, and everything will be better.
Regulation is not the answer.
Either ask it for some other legal sources and ask if those are true (and then try to see if a few aren't), or use the API to feed it its own answer about Varghese etc and then see if it will say it's true (because at that point you've made it think it said this).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. If it lies like a duck, it is a lying duck.
Lying implies intent, and knowing what the truth is. Saying something you believe to be true, but is wrong, is generally not considered a lie but a mistake. A better description of what ChatGPT does is described well by one definition of bullshit: > bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is…
Of course we know ChatGPT cannot lie like a human can, but a big reason the thing exists is to assemble text the same way humans do. So I think it’s useful rhetorically to say that ChatGPT, quite simply, lies.
Hilarious. It’s important to remember: 1) ChatGPT is not a research tool 2) It sort of resembles one and will absolutely act like one if you ask it to, and it it may even produce useful results! But… 3) You have to independently verify any factual statement it makes and also 4) In my experience the longer the chat session, the more likely it is to hallucinate, reiterate, and double down on previous output
e.g. “given following sentence, respond with the best summarization:, ” is okay; “what is a sponge cake” is not.