5 ms·
>When you really start to prod this and think "Ok, this tool by design is going to produce highly plausible but completely untrue information" do we really thin
by johnthewise 4y ago
>When you really start to prod this and think "Ok, this tool by design is going to produce highly plausible but completely untrue information" do we really think the sensible next step is "Better integrate this very tightly into our primarily tool for finding out accurate information"? Because that appears to be the current plan.
It's not completely wrong all the time. Also the conditioning puts it into state where it has to respond with answers even if it doesn't know something. So coupling it with the tools for finding out accurate information is a logical next step. If it works out and you get highly plausible and true information most of the time, that's magical. Just because it's integrated doesn't mean you have to use it but many will. It'll keep getting better because that's how AI model have been doing at every benchmark, so even if you think it's not there yet, trends imply it might get there soon.
- frizlab 4y ago> It's not completely wrong all the time. But it makes up plausible answers and even fake references. Which makes it worse than something which is always dead wrong.
- hef19898 4y agoAnd it seems, to my totally unqualified eye, that the creators did this intentionally. Because why not have ChatGPT respond with "my data does not enable to respond properly" everytime it makes stuff up? Because this whole thing would look a lot less impressive?
- KeplerBoy 4y agoBecause it has no idea if it's spouting bullshit at the moment or not. And that doesn't seem to be addressable as long as the model is just stringing together the next most likely words as it learned them from some huge dataset. The answer "i don't know that" will always be rare, because nobody sits down and writes a blog post about how he could not find the solution to a problem.
- hef19898 4y agoWouldn't it be great if there were a lot more ofbthose blog posts around?
- krona 4y agoA reference in a scientific journal to a piece of fraudulent research is far worse than a fake reference to a non-existent journal. Let's keep things in perspective?
- johnthewise 4y agoAgreed, it's a problem right now. But conceptually, there are multiple ways (persistent memory in embedding dbs to reference, coupling it with search engines and data sources) it can get better.