"Hallucinating" AIs sound creative, but let's not celebrate being wrong

Post by jshen » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:15 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #159

happytiger wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this point. One of the things that has been on my mind of late is the idea of how much of what humans call “correct” or “right” is actually socially generated pressures to conform. Berns and Asch’s various research on social conformity around what we normally would consider objectively correct answers seems to have some potential applications worth testing in AI land. AIs may be much more performant with AI “s…

> One of the things that has been on my mind of late is the idea of how much of what humans call “correct” or “right” is actually socially generated pressures to conform And the only reason that is even a thing is that we humans have a concept of actually being right , which we can distinguish from "responding to socially generated pressures to conform".

Post by jshen » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:17 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #95

famouswaffles wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>LLMs don't even have a concept of "being correct" They clearly do as plenty research indicates. You've just decided not to accept this. Pure confirmation bias in action.

> They clearly do as plenty research indicates. I have seen plenty of researchers claim this. What I have not seen is actual support for such a claim.

Post by jshen » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:21 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #68

jshen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The LLM AI technology generation is optimized to be fluently conversational and not to be factually correct all the time." I always find this point a bit odd because humans aren't "optimized" to be correct either. > "LLMs have no understanding of the underlying reality" I struggle with this one because I see both sides of it. I was making a prompt the other day and gave a CSV file as an input and told the LLM if c…

Humans aren't optimized to be correct, but they are optimized to survive and reproduce themselves in the real world. That's why we develop an understanding of the real world, while LLM can, at most, develop an understanding of human language and the constructs that human language can create. But without the napping that we have between that language and our experience of the world.

Post by fragmede » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 7:38 AM UTC

7moritz7 wrote: post #35

fragmede wrote: post #27

Curiously enough, I don't get the same result as the author on plain ChatGPT-4. https://chat.openai.com/share/e213e0bd-2838-45e2-9942-e52954... https://chat.openai.com/share/64bc62d3-042c-40c4-8d50-8e28ce... Hilariously, plugging the example in the article into Bing enhanced ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 w/ Bing hallucinates because of that very article! https://chat.openai.com/share/4fe50933-8436-44ad-a778-6297ca... If you t…

> Hilariously, plugging the example in the article into Bing enhanced ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 w/ Bing hallucinates because of that very article! Bing does not use the actual GPT 4 model. It's almost certainly a lower parameter model (like 180 billion vs > 1 trillion), or at the very least heavily quantized. That's why it makes more mistakes in your tests.

Post by danmaz74 » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 12:23 PM UTC

gaganyaan wrote: post #146

danmaz74 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans aren't optimized to be correct, but they are optimized to survive and reproduce themselves in the real world. That's why we develop an understanding of the real world, while LLM can, at most, develop an understanding of human language and the constructs that human language can create. But without the napping that we have between that language and our experience of the world.

LLMs develop a model of the world, experienced through human-generated text. The same as I've never been to China, but I have an internal model of China due to experiencing it through human-generated text.