3 ms·
I think this is really dangerous. People often take what they get as a search result for granted, and if you ask for facts, ChatGPT will straight out lie to you
by Gasp0de 4y ago
I think this is really dangerous. People often take what they get as a search result for granted, and if you ask for facts, ChatGPT will straight out lie to you but make it sound very plausible.
For example, I asked chatGPT what percentage of electricity in Germany was produced by renewables, and it said 85.6% and quoted the federal environmental agency. When I went to the FEA website, it clearly said that only 41% are generated by renewables.
- moffkalast 4y agoIt also seems to be 120% sure that the word 'air' ends with the letter 's'. Still I would imagine that you could build a dedicated postprocessor that fact checks the text and another that fixes any math errors.
- lagrange77 4y agoGiven the vast number of possible mistakes the model can potentially produce, i doubt such an error correcting program would be easier to implement, than a LLM that does not make those mistakes in the first place.
- berniedurfee 4y agoSounds like politicians may be the first to be replaced by AI.
- finolex1 4y agoThis seems like a tractable problem in the near future, by rewarding the model for factual accuracy.
- gbjw 4y agoA reward is not a constraint. In the language of modern ml, rewards 'encourage' models to produce certain constrained outputs. The actual outputs during inference can be arbitrarily poor in spite of the added 'reward' during training.
- version_five 4y ago"Really dangerous" is a bit dramatic. Most search already has an info pane for many queries, and it's often wrong or incomplete as well. The world hasn't ended. This just adds more noise
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- typon 4y agoIt's really dangerous for AIs and their proponents, actually. Once people start mistrusting these results, it'll be a slippery slope. I've generally just stopped using ChatGPT entirely because of this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]