161–170 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They spent 10 years finetuning the search and then another 15 finetuning ads and clicks. Google's business is ads, not search.
Apologies in advance for this level pedantry: Google’s business is behavioral futures, not ads. Ads are just a means to that particular end.
"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…
Why do people act like LLMs only hallucinate some of the time?
Hmm yeah I kinda like the concept that it's "hallucinating" 100% of the time, and it just so happens that x% of those hallucinations accurately describe the real world.
In any case, human consciousness is also a hallucination.
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
Reddit is a magnificent source of useful knowledge. r/AskHistorians r/bikewrench To name just two. There is nothing even remotely comparable. But you need to be able to detect sarcasm and irony.
"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…
Sure, but probably not "add glue to pizza to get the cheese to stick" wrong...
Putting glue on the pizza is (apparently) a clever way to take pictures of slices of pizza that look "perfect" to the camera (not for eating, obviously) [1]. I remember a couple years ago some videos of "tricks" showing this, plus literally screwing the pizza with screws. So, yeah, the ai did in fact autocompleted the question correctly. It was just the wrong context. Good luck trying to "fix" that. [1] https://shotk…
"correctly but wrong" is just wrong.... there are no points scored for "in a very specific context it would've made sense"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can ask an LLM to explain itself.. it will give you a logical stepwise progression from your question to its answer. It will often contain a mistake, but the same is true for a human. And if your LLM is giving you 100 different answers, then it has been configured to do so. Because instead, it could be configured to never vary at all. It could be 100% reproducible if so desired.
No, it will generate a new hallucination that might be a logical stepwise progression from the question you asked to the answer you gave, but it is not due to any actual internal reasoning being done by the LLM
Hey Google. Here's a really stupid idea. Knock it off. Your core search result product has gotten increasingly worse and less reliable over at least the last 5 years. YouTube's search results are nearly unusable. I can't imagine almost any external customer is asking for the AI bullshit thing that's just being shovelwared into everything Alphabet product now. I just noticed a couple days ago the gmail iOS app now doe…
Yeah I would still fact check for complex, indepth things...but for quick things where I'm knowledgeable enough I can smell the hallucinations from a mile away, ChatGPT 100%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can ask an LLM to explain itself.. it will give you a logical stepwise progression from your question to its answer. It will often contain a mistake, but the same is true for a human. And if your LLM is giving you 100 different answers, then it has been configured to do so. Because instead, it could be configured to never vary at all. It could be 100% reproducible if so desired.
> it will give you a logical stepwise progression from your question to its answer. No, it will generate a new hallucination that might be a logical stepwise progression from the question you asked to the answer you gave, but it is not due to any actual internal reasoning being done by the LLM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be because they actually released something. If you look back, the Google Research blog posts always have grandiose claims, but you can often never use them.
AlphaGo, AlphaFold, and Waymo FSD are all released in the sense that you can see them actually working in the real world. Those all took much longer to put together than whatever rushed features were released to catch up with OpenAI, however.