Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 387 posts

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#131

Post by SirMaster »

candiddevmike wrote: post #120
dgellow wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insane people at Google thought it would be a good idea to let Reddit of all places drive their AI search responses

I wonder what the impact all of those erase tools are having on LLM training. The ones that replaced all of these highly upvoted comments with nonsense.

I'm pretty sure those "erase" tools are just for the front-end and reddit keeps the original stuff in the back-end. And surely the deal Google made was for the back-end source data, or probably the data that includes the original and the edit.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#132

Post by threeseed »

ta8645 wrote: post #127
jononor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encyclopedia Britannica is also wrong in a reproducible and fixable way. And the input queries a finite set. It's output does not change due to random or arbitrary things. It is actually possible to verify. LLMs so far seem to be entirely unverifiable.

> LLMs so far seem to be entirely unverifiable. I don't understand this complaint. Are they any less verifiable than a human?

I can ask a human to explain the steps they took to answer a question.

I can ask a human a question 100 times and I don't get back 100 different answers.

None of those applies to an LLM.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#133

Post by r053bud »

I’m curious why Sundar Pichai is still running this company? From recent videos it really seems like he has no idea what he’s talking about, and the company seems to be headed in the wrong direction.

Just checked the 5 year stock graph; now I understand

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#135

Post by tomrod »

jerf wrote: post #27

"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…

If everyone can be wrong, then might the assertion that all are wrong committing this same fallacy? "Can" is not destiny, perhaps you have met people who are fully right about the basics but you just didn't sufficiently grok their correctness.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#136

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

chx wrote: post #101
kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best trick the A.I. companies have pulled is getting us to refer to ‘bugs’ as ‘hallucinations.’ It sounds so much more sophisticated.

Ah, my friend it's not a bug It's a fundamental feature These LLMs can produce nothing else but since the bullshit they spew resembles an answer and sometimes accidentally collide with one, people tend to think it can give answers. But no. https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 > You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show m…

That’s a good take.

So LLMs distill human creativity as well as human knowledge, and it’s more useful when their creativity goes off the rails than when their knowledge does.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#138

Post by eynsham »

lukev wrote: post #83
jerf wrote: post #27

"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…

I feel like there's some semantic slippage around the meaning of the word "accuracy" here. I grant you, my print Encyclopedia Britannica is not 100% accurate. But the difference between it and a LLM is not just a matter of degree: there's a "chain of custody" to information that just isn't there with a LLM. Philosophers have a working definition of knowledge as being (at least†) "justified true belief." Even if a LLM…

> it’s not /justified/ belief

Beliefs derived from the output of LLMs that are ‘right most of the time’ pass one facially plausible precisification of ‘justification’ in that they are generated by a reliable belief-generation mechanism (see e.g. Goldman). To block this point one must engage with the post-Gettier literature at least to some extent. There is a clear difference between beliefs induced by reading the outputs of LLMs and those induced by the contents of a reference work, but it is inessential to the point and arguably muddies the water to present the distinction as difference in status as knowledge or non-knowledge.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#139

Post by lupire »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #114
greg_V wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it gets even better. The public has been hearing about AI this and AI that for over a year, but the existing use cases and deployment was confined to some super special niches like writing or the creative industries and programming. This is the first nation-scale deployment of the technology, running on Google's biggest and most profitable market in one of the most widely used internet services, and it's a shitsho…

Plenty of people have been using ChatGPT for daily tasks for almost two years now. GPT-4 isn’t perfect but is otherwise really really good, and deftly handling use cases in my industry that would be impossible without it or however many billion dollars it would take to make GPT-4. From the black Nazis to the suggestion to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge b/c depression, it’s pretty clear that this fiasco isn’t an LLM…

Because no one cares when ChatGPT gets things wrong.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#140

Post by threeseed »

dgellow wrote: post #82
bithive123 wrote: post #62

Why do people act like LLMs only hallucinate some of the time?

It’s not hallucinations here, multiple of the ridiculous results can be directly traced to redit posts where people are joking or saying absurd things

There are examples of hallucinations as well e.g. talking about a Google AI dataset that doesn't exist and using a CSAM dataset which it doesn't.

One of the researchers from Google Deepmind specifically said it was hallucinating.

Post reply on HN