671–680 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These LLMs do not have a concept of factual correctness and are not trained/optimized as such. I find it laughable that people expect these things to act like quiz bots - this misunderstands the nature of a generative LLM entirely. It simply spits out whatever output sequence it feels is most likely to occur after your input sequence. How it defines “most likely” is the subject of much research, but to optimize for f…
> In the end the quality of the information it will get back to you is no better than the quality of a thorough google search.. it will just get you a more concise and well-formatted answer faster. I would say it’s worse than Google search. Google tells you when it can’t find what you are looking for. LLMs “guess” a bullshit answer.
https://chat.openai.com/share/ca733a4a-7cdb-4515-abd0-0444a4...
https://chat.openai.com/share/dced0cb7-b6c3-4c85-bc16-cdbf22...
Hallucinations are definitely a problem, but they are certainly less than they used to be - They will often say that they aren't sure but can speculate, or "it might be because..." etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because for certain prompts, the approximate consensus of all available text on the internet is pretty much true I think you're slightly mischaracterising things here. It has potential to be at least slightly and possibly much better than that. This is evidenced by the fact it is much better than chance at answering "novel" questions that don't have a direct source in the training data. Why it can do it is because…
You’re absolutely right and I’m sure that something resembling higher-level pattern matching is present in the architecture and weights of the model, I’m just saying that I’m not aware of “logical thought” being explicitly optimized or designed for - it’s more of a sometimes-emergent feature of a machine that tries to approximate the content of the internet, which for some topics is dominated by mostly logical though…
Seems like there are quite a few obvious possibilities here off the top of my head. Ground truth for correct facts could be:
1) Wikidata
2) Mathematical ground truth (can be both generated and results validated automatically) including physics
3) Programming ground truth (can be validated by running the code and defining inputs/outputs)
4) Chess
5) Human labelled images and video
6) Map data
7) Dependent on your viewpoint, peer reviewed journals, as long as cited with sources.
This AI stuff is becoming super cool and the last thing we need is the usual charlatans that surround technology stuff. They should be ashamed of themselves, but I know who called for it - not the engineers, but the "management" layer and they're incapable of feeling shame.
I did this at university. It was our first comp sci class ever, we were given raspberry pi's. We had no coding experience or guidance, and were asked to create "something". All we had to work with was information on how to communicate with the pi using putty. Oddly, this assignment didn't require us to submit code, but simply demonstrate it working. My group (3 of us) bought a moisture sensor to plug into the pi, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow this is such an awful excuse. Here’s a whole list of projects intended for kids. https://all3dp.com/2/best-raspberry-pi-projects-for-kids/ It includes building out a whole weather station which includes a humidity sensor as one of the many things it can do.
> Wow this is such an awful excuse. yes for whomever organized such a curse and didn't give such guidance. And besides curse asked for project to do something. It did. It printed lines. We can call the email gimmick, the marketeering strategy, making a turd look good. Don't blame students for failure of whomever designed the curse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this cheating? It sounds like cheating and reflects quite poorly on you.
BS. The CEO of one of the largest public companies just did it and he is fine. Board and shareholders all happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the end the quality of the information it will get back to you is no better than the quality of a thorough google search.. it will just get you a more concise and well-formatted answer faster. I would say it’s worse than Google search. Google tells you when it can’t find what you are looking for. LLMs “guess” a bullshit answer.
Not always, I think that is an unfair reflection of LLM's in their current state. See two trivial examples below: https://chat.openai.com/share/ca733a4a-7cdb-4515-abd0-0444a4... https://chat.openai.com/share/dced0cb7-b6c3-4c85-bc16-cdbf22... Hallucinations are definitely a problem, but they are certainly less than they used to be - They will often say that they aren't sure but can speculate, or "it might be because..…
Gemini Ultra is barely beating ChatGPT in their manufactured benchmarks, and this is all that they got.
What this means is that those who are saying, including people at Google, that they have better models but are not releasing them in the name of AI safety, imply that, at least in the realm of LLMs, Google DeepMind had nothing all along.