It even generated indicators for references, but not the references themselves. I could see it being useful if it was some kind of system that could basically synthesize wikipedia articles from the literature for topics that don't already have a nice review or other sort of summary, but references to actual scholarly works are absolutely essential for that to be useful. I don't know how taking random sentences out of context that happen to have the same theme, without any sort of actual sources, would help anyone aside from paper mills.
Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
11–20 of 126 posts
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#12I think it's fine to work on and release these models, where things fall apart is in how some large companies market them. Listen to 1:35:30 of this Bill Simmons podcast interview to see how an average person interprets the capabilities of these models: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...
There are people who believe explicit works of fiction. Marvel movies come to mind. I'll know we've arrived when super hero films begin with a disclaimer.
The runtime of the podcast was 1:34:27
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#13"A fundamental problem with Galactica is that it is not able to distinguish truth from falsehood," In true science, it is exceptionally hard to distinguish truth from falsehood for many of the interesting subjects. It can take decades of work to reach consensus on what is "truth." Physics in the early 20th century is a great example of this debate.
To be clear, the fact that it is difficult is not a defense of Galactica and its proponents; it is a reason for suspecting that these sorts of language models are fundamentally unsuited to the task.
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#14Because some idiots can't read the disclaimer on the page telling them that the model is inaccurate
It was still a great tool to brainstorm topics that dont exist, and useful as a companion app. Shame that academics can be so cringe now. People like emilymbender deserve to be called out as ethics-nazis
That's the problem with Lecun's group working in facebook now: they have to sumbit to all kinds of corporate BS to avoid bad PR
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#15I don't understand why they would market it as a source of accurate text or some kind of oracle. Language models are useful for generating text. Believable or entertaining works of fiction. The extra parts about truthiness and the dangers of misinformation were just too much for me. We have a bigger problem with our premises and status quo if inaccurate scientific papers are a danger.
> they would market it as a source of accurate text
They did not. IIRC there was a disclaimer in the page that the text is innacurate and that NNs hallucinate. But tweets be tweeting
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#16This outcome from using a large language model to mimic reasoning isn’t surprising. What’s surprising is Yan LeCun’s childish and petty reaction to this entirely foreseeable series of events: > Galactica demo is off line for now. It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy? He’s supposedly an expert in this sort of thing
I would urge him to put it back online, it is interesting and can be useful. Just don't make a press release about it, journalists ruin everything.
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#17"A fundamental problem with Galactica is that it is not able to distinguish truth from falsehood," In true science, it is exceptionally hard to distinguish truth from falsehood for many of the interesting subjects. It can take decades of work to reach consensus on what is "truth." Physics in the early 20th century is a great example of this debate.
To be clear, the fact that it is difficult is not a defense of Galactica and its proponents; it is a reason for suspecting that these sorts of language models are fundamentally unsuited to the task.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#18I think it's fine to work on and release these models, where things fall apart is in how some large companies market them. Listen to 1:35:30 of this Bill Simmons podcast interview to see how an average person interprets the capabilities of these models: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...
There are people who believe explicit works of fiction. Marvel movies come to mind. I'll know we've arrived when super hero films begin with a disclaimer. The runtime of the podcast was 1:34:27
> I'll know we've arrived when super hero films begin with a disclaimer.
That kind of thing has already been happening for quite a while, though. Books have long had disclaimers along the lines of ‘the following events and characters are entirely fictional and are not based on any people from the real world’ — I recall seeing them in e.g. Wodehouse’s books from the 1940s, so it’s not like it’s a new thing.
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#19"A fundamental problem with Galactica is that it is not able to distinguish truth from falsehood," In true science, it is exceptionally hard to distinguish truth from falsehood for many of the interesting subjects. It can take decades of work to reach consensus on what is "truth." Physics in the early 20th century is a great example of this debate.
Not being able to difinitively identify truth is different from not attempting to identify it.
Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online
#20Because some idiots can't read the disclaimer on the page telling them that the model is inaccurate It was still a great tool to brainstorm topics that dont exist, and useful as a companion app. Shame that academics can be so cringe now. People like emilymbender deserve to be called out as ethics-nazis That's the problem with Lecun's group working in facebook now: they have to sumbit to all kinds of corporate BS to a…
What was it a great tool for? Definitely not what it was marketed for (access the world's knowledge).
To me it seems it was about as significant and useful as IBM Watson playing Jeopardy.