3 ms·
It's not difficult to hit the limits of ChatGPT's "knowledge". I've had it invent completely fictitious historical pacts and documents, as well as give me utter
by shever73 4y ago
It's not difficult to hit the limits of ChatGPT's "knowledge". I've had it invent completely fictitious historical pacts and documents, as well as give me utterly incorrect "facts" about programming competitions.
The issue for me isn't that it's wrong. By using ChatGPT, I'm an unpaid beta tester, so I expect inaccuracies. The main problem is that it is cheerfully and confidently wrong. Even if it said "this answer is accurate to within xx%", it would be a start.
- soco 4y agoI'm not sure how it could be giving this percentage. In its world, the answer just is, accurate to 100% based on the training. You'd need an oracle or the like to check on the output, which we don't have (way less shiny work).
- shever73 4y agoI've only toyed around with training machine learning models, but each time it would give a percentage of probability (78% probability this thing is a handwritten 2 and not just a squiggle, for example). I have no experience training LLMs at all, so maybe it's different.
- johnthewise 4y agoWell, at least know we have a benchmark where we can test it. Imagine it at 20% being accurate, being confident while not knowing anything about the subject etc. Do we have a reasonable argument why it can't be 40% in the next 6 months, 80% a bit later and keep improving? There are so many experiments going on, also with tools that we use to gather accurate information. I don't see a reason why it can't get better.