Live data from Hacker News

The Unreliability of LLMs and What Lies Ahead

verissimo.substack.com

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: The Unreliability of LLMs and What Lies Ahead

#161
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a knowledge worker (electrical engineer) but not one bit worried about being replaced by AI in yhe foreseeable future. It does not only neet to be reliable, but also should be able to create, as in create physically working complex systems for me to be worried. I have not seen anything remotely close this yet. I believe AI/ML will eventually get there but definitely not with LLMs or hoarding the whole internet. M…

you are. just change a few words around and you would be reading the confidently incorrect predictions of essentially all scientists and engineers in 2010. you say LLMs wont get us there… and you personally would probably have said word2vec couldnt get us past the turing test… and here we are. citing the existence of a current technology as evidence that another technology, related or not, cannot exist, is lazy and s…

That's good to hear that I'm foolish. It's always nice to be foolish.

Foolishness aside, all we have to predict the future is the current capabilities of the current technology. Bear and bull alike do this. This is the reason people believe we are closer to AGI than say couple of years ago. I have no idea how close or far off we are. What I'm interested in is the current and predictable near future capabilities of the technology.

Re: The Unreliability of LLMs and What Lies Ahead

#162
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's necessarily true - many tasks are difficult to solve but easy to verify. If I ask "place names that end with um", or "good ideas for a birthday party" I can pretty much verify the answer just by reading it. In other cases, clicking through to check that a linked source supports a claim is easier than researching to find and summarize the source in the first place would be.

> I can pretty much verify the answer just by reading it Only if you have domain knowledge. In both of your examples, you have to 1) know geography to determine whether "Técolum" and "Tolum" are indeed city names or just made up; and 2) know what might be acceptable ("good idea") or not at a birthday party. Yes, it'll probably save you some time, but it's not orders of magnitude. > In other cases, clicking through to…

> Only if you have domain knowledge [...]

It's common to have a reasonable intuitive sense for whether something works as a birthday party yet be stumped when coming up with ideas. Or be able to see that a word ends in "um" and is a real word/place you recognise (or double click -> search if not) without necessarily being able to list many yourself if asked. I don't mean to say that verification requires absolutely zero knowledge, just that it can be (and often is) substantially easier, so I don't think insane_dreamer's reasoning holds.

> this supposes that the AI provides a link for every fact.

For andrewmutz's LLM, it was the statement "the user has the ability to easily double check the results whenever they like" that was suggested made it unnecessary in the first place.

Outside of that case, people have the choice to use the LLM that best suits their task - and most popular ones I'm aware of do support search/RAG.

Certainly possible to waste time by doing something like what your wife's professor seemingly did (get non-link "citations" generated by an LLM without search/RAG, then send them to someone who'll probably infer "these must exist somewhere because the sender read them" opposed to "these were vaguely recalled from memory so may not exist") - I don't recommend doing that.

> secondly, if I have to click through every link and read through the source to determine whether details of a "summary" are correct or not, that really does not save me much time from conducting a search and looking through the linked sources myself

A lot of LLM responses are for the kind of thing that doesn't need verification, or for which verification doesn't depend on checking the source. For situations where checking the source is relevant, that's typically just going to be the source for the part you're interested in - in the same way a Wikipedia article can provide a useful lead without needing to check every source the article cites. Anecdotally I find that, while far from perfect, it saves a lot of time when it can surface information that would've otherwise required digging through a dozen or so sources.

Re: The Unreliability of LLMs and What Lies Ahead

#163
post #150

A few months ago I asked CGPT to create a max operating depth table for scuba diving based on various PPO2 limits and EAN gas profiles, just to test it on something I know (its a trivially easy calculation; and the formula is readily available online). It got it wrong…multiple times…even after correction and supplying the correct formula, the table was still repeatedly wrong (it did finally output a correct table). I…

Well it doesn't really do math.

Interesting; just went down a rabbit hole on LLM training and math. For this example, it could have simply copied a table from online, but I wasn’t aware how poorly some LLMs perform on even basic math functions. I’ve not run into that issue before.

Re: The Unreliability of LLMs and What Lies Ahead

#164
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can pretty much verify the answer just by reading it Only if you have domain knowledge. In both of your examples, you have to 1) know geography to determine whether "Técolum" and "Tolum" are indeed city names or just made up; and 2) know what might be acceptable ("good idea") or not at a birthday party. Yes, it'll probably save you some time, but it's not orders of magnitude. > In other cases, clicking through to…

> Only if you have domain knowledge [...] It's common to have a reasonable intuitive sense for whether something works as a birthday party yet be stumped when coming up with ideas. Or be able to see that a word ends in "um" and is a real word/place you recognise (or double click -> search if not) without necessarily being able to list many yourself if asked. I don't mean to say that verification requires absolutely z…

(Later addendum: just noticed now that for some reason I had thought you were a different user to the initial comment I had replied to. The "so I don't think insane_dreamer's reasoning holds" was meant to refer to your previous comment)
Post reply on HN