41–50 of 173 posts
Kind of an odd metric to try to base this process off of. are more comments inherently better? is it responding to buzz words? Makes sense talking about hiring algos / resume scanners in part one and if anything this elucidates some of the trouble with them.
Very nice article. But the title, and the idea, is the very frequent "racist" form of the proper "People [can be] just as bad as my LLMs". Now: some people can't count. Some people hum between words. Some people set fire to national monuments. Reply: "Yes we knew", and "No, it's not necessary". And: if people could lift the tons, we would not have invented cranes. Very, very often in these pages I meet people repeati…
Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.
Those who insist that "all humans are " are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish).
That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that we bias towards numbers with cultural or personal significance. 7 is lucky in western cultures and is religiously significant (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7#Culture ). 42 is culturally significant in science fiction, though that's a lot more recent. There are probably other examples, but I imagine the mean converges on numbers with multiple cultural touchpoints.
I have never heard of 7 being a lucky number in western culture and your link doesn't support that. 3 is a lucky number, 13 is an unlucky number, 7 is nothing to me. So I don't think its that, 7 is still a very common "random number" here even though there is no special cultural significance to it.
Some sustain that 7 is the God's number, stemming from "God created the world in seven days"[1]
Also, _"According to some, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity"_ [2]
[1] https://www.wikihow.com/What-Does-the-Number-7-Mean-in-the-B...
But an LLM can't be held accountable.. neither can most employees, but we often forget that :)
Employees get fired all the time, and the more wrong answers I get from an LLM, the less I use it until it's never used again.
Is my understanding wrong that LLMs are trained to emulate observed human behavior in their training data? From that follows that LLMs fit to produce all kinds of human biases. Like preferring the first choice out of many, and the last our of many (primacy biases). Funnily the LLM might replicate the biases slightly wrong and by doing so produce new derived biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.
Maybe misanthropic?
Is my understanding wrong that LLMs are trained to emulate observed human behavior in their training data? From that follows that LLMs fit to produce all kinds of human biases. Like preferring the first choice out of many, and the last our of many (primacy biases). Funnily the LLM might replicate the biases slightly wrong and by doing so produce new derived biases.
LLMs don't emulate human behavior. They spit out chunks of words in an order that parrots some of their training data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that we bias towards numbers with cultural or personal significance. 7 is lucky in western cultures and is religiously significant (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7#Culture ). 42 is culturally significant in science fiction, though that's a lot more recent. There are probably other examples, but I imagine the mean converges on numbers with multiple cultural touchpoints.
I have never heard of 7 being a lucky number in western culture and your link doesn't support that. 3 is a lucky number, 13 is an unlucky number, 7 is nothing to me. So I don't think its that, 7 is still a very common "random number" here even though there is no special cultural significance to it.
Lucky Seven/Lucky Number Seven is also just a common phrase in American culture. There’s even a Wikipedia page of things called Lucky [Number] Seven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_7
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely used in slot machines as a lucky number. Which came first I'm not sure (but I suspect from a sibling comment in the same thread it's based on perceived commonality and primeness historically and became "lucky" in the past because of that).
While I have never heard of someone referring to 7 as a lucky number, 7 is the most common sum of two rolled dice. So I can see how people would regard it as a lucky number. Along the same lines, I assume that someone who mentions 42 as a random number has at least some interest in science fiction.
Is my understanding wrong that LLMs are trained to emulate observed human behavior in their training data? From that follows that LLMs fit to produce all kinds of human biases. Like preferring the first choice out of many, and the last our of many (primacy biases). Funnily the LLM might replicate the biases slightly wrong and by doing so produce new derived biases.
But human expectations are also not bias-free (e.g. from the preferring-the-first-choice phenomenon)