Live data from Hacker News

Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

aisnakeoil.com

1–10 of 113 posts

Re: Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

#4
Not just scientists, but everyone!

My partner recently went a bit nuts writing an article with the help of GPT4. She was very proud of how productive she'd been until I asked if she'd actually searched for the papers GPT4 had referred to.

Of course, many of the referred to papers didn't exist...

Re: Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

#5
> Unfortunately, most scientific fields have succumbed to AI hype, leading to a suspension of common sense. For example, a line of research in political science claimed to predict the onset of civil war with an accuracy2 of well over 90%, a number that should sound facially impossible. (It turned out to be leakage, which is what got us interested in this whole line of research.)

This coupled with people acting on its predictions is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy.

which is to ask, are AI safety folks building models of this pattern? :)

Re: Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

#6
Wow I came into this article angry, idk if their book title accurately conveys the sober, expert analysis it contains! In case anyone else is curious why they’re talking about “leakage” in the first place instead of the existing term “model bias”, here’s the paper they cite in the “compelling evidence” paper that started these two’s saga with the snake oil salesmen: https://www.cs.umb.edu/~ding/history/470_670_fall_2011/paper...

Crux passage:

> Our focus here is on leakage, which is a specific form of illegitimacy that is an intrinsic property of the observational inputs of a model. This form of illegitimacy remains partly abstract, but could be further defined as follows: Let u be some random variable. We say a second random variable v is u-legitimate if v is observable to the client for the purpose of inferring u. In this case we write v € legit{u}.

> A fully concrete meaning of legitimacy is built-in to any specific inference problem. The trivial legitimacy rule, going back to the first example of leakage given in Section 1, is that the target itself must never be used for inference:

> (1) y !€ legit{y}

So ultimately this all about bad experimental discipline re: training and test data, in an abstract way? I’ve been staring at this paper for way too long trying to figure out what exactly each “target” is and how it leaks, but I hope that engineering-translation is close

Re: Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

#9

Not just scientists, but everyone! My partner recently went a bit nuts writing an article with the help of GPT4. She was very proud of how productive she'd been until I asked if she'd actually searched for the papers GPT4 had referred to. Of course, many of the referred to papers didn't exist...

Sadly it's not even just references, LLMs still hallucinate or at least misrepresent even the most basic of facts. That and the stereotypical GPT-verbage makes it impossible to use for writing anything significant.
Post reply on HN