61–70 of 92 posts
If I have a random number generator producing arbitrary strings, am I required to ensure that the strings do not contain untrue statements about individuals?
Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception? Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist. > While inaccurate information may be tolerable when a student uses ChatGPT to help him with their homework, it is unacceptable when it comes to information about individuals. I don’t even understand this part. Why would inaccurate information be at all acc…
> Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception? This is not “the media”. noyb isn’t reporting on what other people did, they are informing us of what they just did . > Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist. The article isn’t about the failings of ChatGPT, it’s about a specific legal complaint being made. > Why would inaccurate information b…
Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.
Does the GDPR require information that is not asserted to be factual to actually be factual? If I have a random number generator producing arbitrary strings, am I required to ensure that the strings do not contain untrue statements about individuals?
Does the GDPR require information that is not asserted to be factual to actually be factual? If I have a random number generator producing arbitrary strings, am I required to ensure that the strings do not contain untrue statements about individuals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, it seems recently that we've detached what things are from what the people behind them say things are, so bing AI is an LLM, phind is an LLM, and they market themselves as search engine, like to see in details you say >> It is not a mechanism to retrieve facts Then bing AI powered by chatgpt shows on its site >> [Hello, this is Bing! I’m the new AI-powered chat mode of Microsoft Bing that] can help you…
Bing is not just an LLM. It’s RAG, the LLM is just a layer on top of a typical search engine. The LLM is not “getting” any facts, it’s just synthesizing them in a human-readable format.
So if I ask Bing about me it says "Rory McCune is a Cloud Native Security Advocate at Aqua Security." without any ref.
The problem is, that's not correct, that's a job I had two years ago, but someone reading that could be forgiven for thinking that's a fact, given how it was presented.
In this case that's harmless, but I could easily see cases where it would not be harmless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now what I think would be interesting if one can use ChatGPT or whatever to distill any kind of document into a series of factoids. Say you give it the Wikipedia article about a famous person and it will extract stuff like "born: 1949-01-30" and associate it with the name of the person. Later on, a user asks an AI "when was Foo Bar born?", and the AI then looks up the factoid database and responds with the correct fa…
Note that a lot of the information on Wikipedia is available as a structured knowledge graph already: https://wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bing is not just an LLM. It’s RAG, the LLM is just a layer on top of a typical search engine. The LLM is not “getting” any facts, it’s just synthesizing them in a human-readable format.
How is LLM+RAG any different from a fine-tuned LLM without RAG? They're both trained on data, and have the capability to hallucinate.
After all, if you've trained an LLM on a masses of unchecked data you've scraped from the internet, your training data probably includes "Joe Biden is the president" and "Donald Trump is the president" and "Barrack Obama is the president" and "Emmanuel Macron est le président" and so on. It would be understandable if an LLM was confused about who the president was.
These people think handing an LLM the contents of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States then asking who the president is sounds a lot more feasible.
Personally I'm not so sure - I've never seen a RAG implementation that impressed me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bing is not just an LLM. It’s RAG, the LLM is just a layer on top of a typical search engine. The LLM is not “getting” any facts, it’s just synthesizing them in a human-readable format.
How is LLM+RAG any different from a fine-tuned LLM without RAG? They're both trained on data, and have the capability to hallucinate.
So the gaps are the only areas where the LLM can hallucinate on and if your search query is easily available information on the internet, then hallucinations will be less or none.
Edit: I have used RAG with a project that I am working on and it's quite hard to ascertain if the LLM used the information provided as part of the RAG documents or just made up information on it's own, since even without RAG, we were getting similar responses 7 times out of 10.
People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what LLMs are. I’ve had to explain this so many times even to engineers. People keep using it as Google. It is not a mechanism to retrieve facts. It’s rather a reasoning mechanism, that when used like a search engine generates text that looks like output from a retrieval of facts. The article talks about OpenAI being unwilling to correct errors. But they just can’t. There…
I wouldn’t call it reasoning. To me that implies using logic and being objective. It’s more wisdom/stupidity of the crowds, with the model designer deciding what crowd to use to create the model and then tweaking things to make the model look like it’s reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception? This is not “the media”. noyb isn’t reporting on what other people did, they are informing us of what they just did . > Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist. The article isn’t about the failings of ChatGPT, it’s about a specific legal complaint being made. > Why would inaccurate information b…
I mean, yeah I was having a tough time understanding it. I felt like my comment conveyed my confusion pretty well. I still think the wording is strange and the most clarifying thing you’ve provided is that this guy is a blogger and his target audience is far less broad than HN encapsulates. Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.
It’s not one blogger, noyb (stands for “None Of Your Business”) is a non-profit focused on protecting privacy rights in the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB
> I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.
Thank you for saying that. Especially on the internet where we all have the compulsion to double down, I believe those types of admissions take guts and should be celebrated and normalised.