81–90 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>You have already gotten the basics of faking data incorrect. Let's get past the unnecessary antagonism. Can you please explain the above? Or actually, forget it. You history suggests you don't respond and something like 99/100 of your comments are dead. Maybe this isn't the place for you?
Somewhere in the mind's eye of science fiction is a world where we have near-unlimited productivity and knowledge and we're all free to pursue our self-actualized lives as we see fit. But as productivity increases, and as AI improves, in both cases individual greed holds back lifting up the many. And so we end up asking for caution on automating away someone's job, or caution on rapid AI progress. Does anyone know an…
It's awesome to know that the scientific process that's been in use for centuries, based on peer review and the importance of replication, is still so powerful that AI generated fake data can't do anything to undermine it. Reality doesn't care how the data was faked when you replicate an experiment! Now, if only scientists and institutions would actually bother using those tools we developed centuries ago. Unfortunat…
Apparently, we have a replication crisis. From what I hear, many papers can’t be replicated, and we don’t know, because no one tries.
>“It will make it very easy for any researcher or group of researchers to create fake measurements on non-existent patients, fake answers to questionnaires or to generate a large data set on animal experiments.” Perhaps I'm naive, but I think the people that want to fake data were already doing it without tools like chatgpt. Especially since a ton of biological data is normally distributed, so it's exceedingly easy t…
[flagged]
No one believed those who said "make it idiot proof and they'll just make a better idiot", but we should have heeded this warning. They did it! They finally did it! They made a better idiot!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we’re pretending making something an order of magnitude easier makes no difference? Ok.
ChatGPT will unlock new levels of both good and bad. The question is what the ratio between the two is going to be.
It is harder to keep bad data out than it is to keep it filled with good data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Humanity learns" is impossible. The unit of analysis is the individual. Some state may cross between individuals via education, but the individuals still must learn. History shows that knowledge transmission remains a sticky wicket.
Firm disagree! Example: take a tour of the tower of London and learn about all the nasty medieval tortures we used to inflict on people. Now we don't do that anymore. Humans learn things collectively via culture and cultural transmission has been an extremely effective tool of knowledge preservation over the generations.
Based on some of the shit my neighbors post online there is but a thin veneer on society that keeps them from doing it now.
For anyone jumping in who hasn't read the article, this is not about hallucinations and some researchers being surprised that GPT-4 doesn't always respond with absolute truth. Instead it's about how easily it can be used to generate plausible looking datasets that would confirm a hypothesis. It's a warning note to journals about how fake data can more easily be created.
Exactly. It's no different from the fake data sets created by hand in scientific misconduct cases for years, just I guess easier. I guess that's not a good thing, but given even making a fake data set by hand is far easier than generating real data, I'm not sure if this will suddenly make more people fake data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's accurate, it generates novel outputs that were not observed in the training data.
It doesn't generate new tokens. Train an LLM on text that only uses lowercase, and it will never output an uppercase letter.
10 01 = 1001?