They did say each token is generated using probability, not certainty, given that there is a chance it produces wrong tokens
LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
191–200 of 274 posts
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#192Maybe, it's time for the bubble to burst.
LLMs amplify both intelligence and stupidity, which is why Terence Tao finds them about at the level of a mediocre graduate student (and getting better), and you can’t wait for them to die.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#193We don’t need to “live with this”. We can just not use them, ignore them, or argue against their proliferation and acceptance, as I will continue doing.
I want to use them. Lots of other people do, too. Feel free to get left behind.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#194> By establishing the mathematical certainty of hallucinations, we challenge the prevailing notion that they can be fully mitigated Having a mathematical proof is nice, but honestly this whole misunderstanding could have been avoided if we'd just picked a different name for the concept of "producing false information in the course of generating probabilistic text". "Hallucination" makes it sound like something is goi…
The term "hallucinate" may not be the best. However, if the context is a device generating a plausible sounding but non-existent scientific reference for a given claim it makes, some words more specific than "producing false information..." seem needed.
These thing make assertions, some true, some false. Since they emulate human behavior, they say things that would tend to convince people of their assertions. So "anthropomorphism" is a complicated question.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs do now have a concept of truth now since much of the RLHF is focused on making them more accurate and true. I think the problem is that humanity has a poor concept of truth. We think of most things as true or not true when much of our reality is uncertain due to fundamental limitations or because we often just don't know yet. During covid for example humanity collectively hallucinated the importance of disinfect…
> humanity collectively hallucinated the importance of disinfecting groceries for awhile I reject this history. I homeschooled my kids during covid due to uncertainty and even I didn't reach that level, and nor did anyone I knew in person. A very tiny number who were egged on by some YouTubers did this, including one person I knew remotely. Unsurprisingly that person was based in SV.
It's not some extremist on YouTube, disinfecting your groceries was the official recommendation of many countries worldwide, including most of Europe. I couldn't say how many people actually followed the recommendation , but I would bet it's way more than a tiny number.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s still a bug, even if it’s the only way the system can behave as currently designed. I agree that “hallucination” is a poor term for it, though. For medication, we call a bug a “side effect” even though it’s really just a chemical interaction which, given enough information, could be predicted. Ultimately the computer only does what we tell it to do. That has always been the case and probably always will be, just…
I find it helpful to distinguish between bugs and design flaws. A bug is caused by a poorly implemented version of the design (or a literal bug in the system). Fixing a bug requires identifying where the system varies from the design and bringing it into alignment with the design. A design flaw is a case where the idealized system as conceived by the engineers is incapable of fully solving the problem statement. Fixi…
99% is way too low for production use.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe hallucination is all cognition is, and humans are just really good at it?
In my experience, humans are at least as bad at it as GPT-4, if not far worse . In terms, specifically, of being "factually accurate" and grounded in absolute reality. Humans operate entirely in the probabilistic realm of what seems right to us based on how we were educated, the values we were raised with, our religious beliefs, etc. -- Human beings are all over the map with this.
This is demonstrably not true. People also bullshit, a lot, but nowhere near the level of an LLM. You won't get fake citations, complete with publication year and ISBN, in a conversation with a human. StackOverflow is not full of down voted answers of people suggesting to use non-existent libraries with complete code examples.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it helpful to distinguish between bugs and design flaws. A bug is caused by a poorly implemented version of the design (or a literal bug in the system). Fixing a bug requires identifying where the system varies from the design and bringing it into alignment with the design. A design flaw is a case where the idealized system as conceived by the engineers is incapable of fully solving the problem statement. Fixi…
99% is way too low for production use.
If that's true for your use case (it's not true for all) then yes, including LLMs in your design would be a design flaw until they get much much better.
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#199Isn't that obvious without invoking godel's theorem etc?
[deleted]
Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This
#200Just from the way this paper is written (badly, all kinds of LaTeX errors), my belief that something meaningful was proved here, that some nice mathematical theory has been developed, is low.
Example: The first 10 pages are meaningless bla