51–60 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im pretty sure they use a vector storage database against their docs/resources so when you query they can just parse those sources and produce a free hallucination response to it. No need to make things up if you have the sources anyways.
“Hallucination free” or “Free hallucination”? The latter would be very different interpretation and some here would probably agree with that accusation
I don’t really understand viewpoints like these. The submitter knows the AI isn’t lying and the submitter is being purposefully obtuse in order to drive controversy.
Imagine putting an LLM anywhere health, safety, or regulation are involved. It would be engineering malpractice.
I actually think this feature would be fine if implemented better. GPT-4 is perfectly capable of accurately explaining what a short code block does if you prompt it with relevant documentation… which MDN has in abundance, but isn’t using, for some reason. The mistakes seem to be (1) using GPT 3.5 instead because it’s cost effective, even though GPT 3.5 has severe issues with hallucination, and (2) not including conte…
This just looks like the poster child of "hell is made of good intentions". It may look seemingly harmless at first, even a good idea. But you'll seed doubt. As that will erode the value of the whole site. Which was its main asset.
Is this being driven by good intentions? It looks like they are jamming the latest AI hotness into a feature without taking much time at all to think it through or implement things well.
I actually think this feature would be fine if implemented better. GPT-4 is perfectly capable of accurately explaining what a short code block does if you prompt it with relevant documentation… which MDN has in abundance, but isn’t using, for some reason. The mistakes seem to be (1) using GPT 3.5 instead because it’s cost effective, even though GPT 3.5 has severe issues with hallucination, and (2) not including conte…
On a deeper level, though, I don’t know that it’s actually useful. I haven’t found a single example where it added anything which wasn’t present in the authored text, and the explanations tend to be very pointless mechanical descriptions which miss the larger point of why you’d want to do things. On the popover API page, for example, it had a bunch of regurgitated comments before telling me that you’d need to write a bunch of JavaScript to actually toggle popover visibility when the whole point of that API is not needing to do that. That was also interesting with the incorrect claim that it was a non-standard attribute and you’d need to implement it using a JavaScript framework like Vue.js when you think about how much code someone might write if they relied on that explanation.
Hey ChatGPT, please generate a Firefox Corp-style apology for this snafu... Be sure to use some bullshit blah blah for our original aim of wanting to enhance user experience and listening to the users' feedback, and some more bullshit blah blah about doing better in the future.
I actually think this feature would be fine if implemented better. GPT-4 is perfectly capable of accurately explaining what a short code block does if you prompt it with relevant documentation… which MDN has in abundance, but isn’t using, for some reason. The mistakes seem to be (1) using GPT 3.5 instead because it’s cost effective, even though GPT 3.5 has severe issues with hallucination, and (2) not including conte…
This is the first time I've personally heard someone claiming anything like that, though I don't tend to do anything with LLMs (due to this bullshit factor).
Hey ChatGPT, please generate a Firefox Corp-style apology for this snafu... Be sure to use some bullshit blah blah for our original aim of wanting to enhance user experience and listening to the users' feedback, and some more bullshit blah blah about doing better in the future.
Who owns MDN? I thought it was disbanded by Mozilla few years ago.