3 ms·
Isn't part of the problem that an LLM will complete a statement with words that form a kind of statistical midpoint of the things that might come next. But when
by unyttigfjelltol 4y ago
Isn't part of the problem that an LLM will complete a statement with words that form a kind of statistical midpoint of the things that might come next. But when we're dealing with specific things in the real world, the true way to complete a sentence will not be that kind of statistical function, in fact it only reliably will follow from actually knowing the answer.
So, it's sort of like driving a car based not on a complete map of the area, but a partial map where the missing pieces are filled in from statistical averages of things that appear generally in the world-- but not necessarily in that location. We all may be impressed at how close the predictions come to reality, but the only truly reliable thing is that those predictions, measured with precision, will be wrong. And if you rely on them without verifying them yourself, you might have a serious problem.
- williamcotton 4y agoI’m going to refrain from epistemological instruction but I would recommend you start with the Greeks and at least cover Kant and the analytical philosophers that followed. The “true” way to answer a proposition is not even remotely as simple as you’ve described.
- unyttigfjelltol 4y agoWell, yes, but ... the fact remains an LLM is not equipped to grapple with truths.
- goatlover 4y agoOr we could just deflate "truth" for this particular discussion, since what matters is whether predicting the next word works well enough without knowledge of the world. Pragmatically speaking, that's what matters.