4 ms·

Not sure where medicine even entered the discussion. Obviously GPT-3 is not a doctor and shouldn’t be used as one. That’s a much harder problem than suppressing

Not sure where medicine even entered the discussion. Obviously GPT-3 is not a doctor and shouldn’t be used as one. That’s a much harder problem than suppressing the tendency of GPT-3 to confabulate/hallucinate fictional memories.

abrax3141 4y ago
It’s not obvious. Medical advice is among the top searches on google - possibly the top. And is, by that very same virtue, among the first things people are going to ask what they hysterically believe to be an AI.
- goodside 4y ago
  There’s a big leap from “some layperson might misuse this for medical advice” to “code generated by GPT-3, for any purpose, cannot be reviewed and fixed by expert human programmers,” which is where this thread started. I’m not sure what you’re arguing, or if you’re even trying to support that original point.
  - abrax3141 4y ago
    We should probably cut this off, but let me try to explain what I had in mind, which might be none sense, but was certainly not well explained. Too briefly, presumably we can agree that it’s even hard for experts to check and fix code created by other humans effectively. Now put this in a dangerous domain. I originally said aviation, but (confusingly) switched to medicine for reasons not worth going into, but we can replace “program” with “treatment regimen” and “expert programmer” with “specialist physician”. The fail I was reaching for is where what is hallucinated by the LLM looks really convincing (has great grammar), and is close enough to correct that it isn’t glaringly wrong - and these models are good at doing those two things! - but by virtue of the fact that they can’t reason, they aren’t actually “thinking things through” - which is why, of course, you need the programmer/specialist. But the hallucination is so good (yet wrong, per unreasoned) that users (patients) are taking the word of the model. You think that can’t happen, but we do it all the time with results from “Dr Google”. A friend who is a doctor says that patients regularly come in with inch think binders of stuff they printed off the web that he has to talk them down from. We’re headed for a near future where instead of being talked down from stuff you merely printed off, you’ll have to be talked down from an extremely convincing wrong treatment hallucinated by Dr HAL. Anyway…never mind.
    - kreetx 4y ago
      I think "put this in a dangerous domain" was what the parent was specifically not doing. I also wonder if it's GPT-3 itself arguing as the text is kind of strange. :)

abrax3141 4y ago

It’s not obvious. Medical advice is among the top searches on google - possibly the top. And is, by that very same virtue, among the first things people are going to ask what they hysterically believe to be an AI.

goodside 4y ago
There’s a big leap from “some layperson might misuse this for medical advice” to “code generated by GPT-3, for any purpose, cannot be reviewed and fixed by expert human programmers,” which is where this thread started. I’m not sure what you’re arguing, or if you’re even trying to support that original point.
- abrax3141 4y ago
  We should probably cut this off, but let me try to explain what I had in mind, which might be none sense, but was certainly not well explained. Too briefly, presumably we can agree that it’s even hard for experts to check and fix code created by other humans effectively. Now put this in a dangerous domain. I originally said aviation, but (confusingly) switched to medicine for reasons not worth going into, but we can replace “program” with “treatment regimen” and “expert programmer” with “specialist physician”. The fail I was reaching for is where what is hallucinated by the LLM looks really convincing (has great grammar), and is close enough to correct that it isn’t glaringly wrong - and these models are good at doing those two things! - but by virtue of the fact that they can’t reason, they aren’t actually “thinking things through” - which is why, of course, you need the programmer/specialist. But the hallucination is so good (yet wrong, per unreasoned) that users (patients) are taking the word of the model. You think that can’t happen, but we do it all the time with results from “Dr Google”. A friend who is a doctor says that patients regularly come in with inch think binders of stuff they printed off the web that he has to talk them down from. We’re headed for a near future where instead of being talked down from stuff you merely printed off, you’ll have to be talked down from an extremely convincing wrong treatment hallucinated by Dr HAL. Anyway…never mind.
  - kreetx 4y ago
    I think "put this in a dangerous domain" was what the parent was specifically not doing. I also wonder if it's GPT-3 itself arguing as the text is kind of strange. :)