201–205 of 205 posts
I still have no idea how it works. Any articles that go in depth? Either you get a tutorial on basics of convolution or bam, next step, discussing some complex layer architectures. Where is the middle step?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's perfectly fine. Humans have exactly the same problem. They will get this wrong, and you will reply "no, I'm talking about the android version". Language is ambiguous so we cannot expect machines to get it right all the time.
I do agree with you that it is fine, what I was getting at was that there needs to be a way to measure uncertainty in a manner that is robust to unbalanced distributions or context drifting.
Imagine Wolfram's system with GPT integrated. I hope they're working on that.
Current GPT version is not very good at math, and it's not at all clear whether this can be fixed within a language model. Q: I have 2 cats and 1 horse. How many legs do they have in total? A: If you have two cats and one horse, then the total number of legs they have is 8. Cats typically have four legs, while horses have four legs as well. So two cats would have a total of 8 legs, and when you add the four legs of t…
Interestingly, it detected that I was asking about the legs on an increasing number of cats, from 1 to 3, and volunteered up the (incorrect) number of legs for 4 - 6 cats, as well as the correct number for 1 - 3 dogs and 1 - 3 elephants.
If you change "legs" to "limbs", it starts answering correctly for multiple cats. But when you add the horse, it goes back to saying cats only have two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most knowledge sources don't make up totally fictional citations to nonexistent sources. Or, if they do, nobody uses them for anything serious. Even Wikipedia citations will get removed if they point to URLs that never existed.
if we focus on the best sources, even in studies a lot of research can't be replicated, and if we focus on te most common ones like newspapers and tv, I'd say most of it is made up or might as well be
But I'm not talking about it just being wrong, I'm talking about it citing webpages and books that don't exist and never did[0]. If Wikipedia regularly had that sort of quality issue people just wouldn't use it. There's a threshold below which something stops being useful.
[0] Bloggs, Joe. "ChatGPT just makes stuff up". Nature, vol 123, 2022, pp 123-321. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/111/111