41–50 of 60 posts
Someone build an LLM confessional site where a human user acts as the priest and an LLM joins the chat to confess its sins.
LLMs can not "lie", they do not "know" anything, and certainly can not "confess" to anything either. What LLMs can do is generate numbers which can be constructed piecemeal from some other input numbers & other sources of data by basic arithmetic operations. The output number can then be interpreted as a sequence of letters which can be imbued with semantics by someone who is capable of reading and understanding word…
LLMs can not "lie", they do not "know" anything, and certainly can not "confess" to anything either. What LLMs can do is generate numbers which can be constructed piecemeal from some other input numbers & other sources of data by basic arithmetic operations. The output number can then be interpreted as a sequence of letters which can be imbued with semantics by someone who is capable of reading and understanding word…
Can't you say the same of the human brain, given a different algorithm? Granted, we don't know the algorithm, but nothing in the laws of physics implies we couldn't simulate it on a computer. Aren't we all programs taking analog inputs and spitting actions? I don't think what you presented is a good argument for LLMs not "know"ing, in some meaning of the word.
LLMs can not "lie", they do not "know" anything, and certainly can not "confess" to anything either. What LLMs can do is generate numbers which can be constructed piecemeal from some other input numbers & other sources of data by basic arithmetic operations. The output number can then be interpreted as a sequence of letters which can be imbued with semantics by someone who is capable of reading and understanding word…
LLMs can not "lie", they do not "know" anything, and certainly can not "confess" to anything either. What LLMs can do is generate numbers which can be constructed piecemeal from some other input numbers & other sources of data by basic arithmetic operations. The output number can then be interpreted as a sequence of letters which can be imbued with semantics by someone who is capable of reading and understanding word…
Human brains depend on neurons and "neuronal arithmetic". In fact, their statements are merely "neuronal arithmetic" that gets converted to speech or writing that get imbued with semantic meaning when interpreted by another brain. And yet, we have no problem attributing dishonesty or knowledge to other humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human brains depend on neurons and "neuronal arithmetic". In fact, their statements are merely "neuronal arithmetic" that gets converted to speech or writing that get imbued with semantic meaning when interpreted by another brain. And yet, we have no problem attributing dishonesty or knowledge to other humans.
Please provide references for formal & programmable specifications of "neuronal arithmetic". I know where I can easily find specifications & implementations of boolean algebra but I haven't seen anything of the sort for what you're referencing. Remember, if you are going to tell me my argument is analogous to reductionism of neurons to chemical & atomic dynamics then you better back it up w/ actual formal specificati…
Do these models really lie or do they only do what they are supposed to do - produce text that is statistically similar to the training set, but not in the training set (and thus can include false/made up statements)? Now they add another run on top of it that is in principle prone to the same issues, except they reward the model for factuality instead of likeability. This is cool, but why not apply the same reward s…
Lying requires intent by definition. LLMs do not and cannot have intent, so they are incapable of lying. They just produce text. They are software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please provide references for formal & programmable specifications of "neuronal arithmetic". I know where I can easily find specifications & implementations of boolean algebra but I haven't seen anything of the sort for what you're referencing. Remember, if you are going to tell me my argument is analogous to reductionism of neurons to chemical & atomic dynamics then you better back it up w/ actual formal specificati…
Well, then you didn't look very hard. Where do you think we got the idea for artificial neurons from?
Do these models really lie or do they only do what they are supposed to do - produce text that is statistically similar to the training set, but not in the training set (and thus can include false/made up statements)? Now they add another run on top of it that is in principle prone to the same issues, except they reward the model for factuality instead of likeability. This is cool, but why not apply the same reward s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They really lie. Not on purpose; because they are trained on rewards that favor lying as a strategy. Othello-GPT is a good example to understand this. Without explicit training, but on the task of 'predicting moves on an Othello board', Othello-GPT spontaneously developed the strategy of 'simulate the entire board internally'. Lying is a similar emergent, very effective strategy for reward.
Reference: https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-hallucinates-beca... If you don't know the answer, and are only rewarded for correct answers, guessing, rather than saying "I don't know", is the optimal approach.