4 ms·

Seems trivial to me to bolt on some critical thinking filters. Right now ChatGPT acts like pure Amygdala. You poke it, and it spits out something that looks ri

by px43 4y ago

Seems trivial to me to bolt on some critical thinking filters. Right now ChatGPT acts like pure Amygdala. You poke it, and it spits out something that looks right based on what it was trained on. This is fine, it's just a demo, and this gives a really deep understanding of the direct limitations of these sorts of LLMs. Ideally a more mature chat bot would just do what I do in situations where some critical thinking or research is called for. I do a quick fact check. I think up a few search terms for Google, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, whatever, assume those results are more logically accurate, and present that data instead of the typical vomit my brain usually spits out. ChatGPT is actually really good at coming up with good search terms for popular search engines, and incorporating results into responses. It just doesn't have anything that reaches out to the web at the moment, which is probably so a certain subsection of the population doesn't have a total panic attack. It seems like fact check functionality would take less than 100 lines of relatively straight-forward python. I bet you could even get ChatGPT to write it.

owlruns2468 4y ago
Thought the same thing — we need ways to figure out if what ChatGPT wrote is correct or not. What do you think about an extension like this for fact checking? https://twitter.com/skippperD/status/1613000965929709569 https://twitter.com/skippperD/status/1613000965929709569
thomastjeffery 4y ago
Here's what I suspect filters would look like: function critical_filter(response) => Maybe Text { if logic_parse_check(response) == LogicallySound then { return Some response } else { return Nothing } } do { static seed = 0; seed += 1; response = critical_filter(GPT::generate_response(prompt, seed)) } while response != Nothing We are effectively brute-forcing hashes here. Take as many shots in the light as you need to hit, but take no effort to aim. The only solution is a replacement.

by px43 4y ago

owlruns2468 4y ago

Thought the same thing — we need ways to figure out if what ChatGPT wrote is correct or not. What do you think about an extension like this for fact checking? https://twitter.com/skippperD/status/1613000965929709569 https://twitter.com/skippperD/status/1613000965929709569

thomastjeffery 4y ago

Here's what I suspect filters would look like: function critical_filter(response) => Maybe Text { if logic_parse_check(response) == LogicallySound then { return Some response } else { return Nothing } } do { static seed = 0; seed += 1; response = critical_filter(GPT::generate_response(prompt, seed)) } while response != Nothing We are effectively brute-forcing hashes here. Take as many shots in the light as you need to hit, but take no effort to aim. The only solution is a replacement.