9 ms·

> ChatGPT is the same as that but more advanced, it just checks that the text looks nice, it doesn't care about the facts in the text. Actually, it is pretty e

> ChatGPT is the same as that but more advanced, it just checks that the text looks nice, it doesn't care about the facts in the text. Actually, it is pretty easy to ask ChatGPT to do some (simple) fact-checking. Since an answer with the correct fact checking and one with an incorrect fact-checking look equally "nice" from the point of view of the language, I think your assumption is wrong. Prompt: "Can you please check if all the information contained in the following text is correct? To do that, for each statement first write down what it is about, then write down your knowledge about the same facts, and finally provide a correctness assessment for the statement. "An apple is an edible fruit produced by an apple tree (Prunus domestica). Apple trees are cultivated worldwide and are the most widely grown species in the genus Malus. The tree originated in the Americas, where its wild ancestor, Malus sieversii, is still found today. Apples have been grown for thousands of years in Asia and Europe and were brought to North America by European colonists. Apples have religious and mythological significance in many cultures, including Norse, Greek, and European Christian tradition." Answer: Statement 1: An apple is an edible fruit produced by an apple tree (Prunus domestica). Knowledge: The statement is partially incorrect. An apple is an edible fruit produced by an apple tree, but the scientific name of the apple tree is Malus domestica, not Prunus domestica. Assessment: Incorrect Statement 2: Apple trees are cultivated worldwide and are the most widely grown species in the genus Malus. Knowledge: The statement is correct. Assessment: Correct Statement 3: The tree originated in the Americas, where its wild ancestor, Malus sieversii, is still found today. Knowledge: The statement is incorrect. The apple tree originated in Central Asia, where Malus sieversii, its wild ancestor, is still found today. Assessment: Incorrect Statement 4: Apples have been grown for thousands of years in Asia and Europe and were brought to North America by European colonists. Knowledge: The statement is correct. Assessment: Correct Statement 5: Apples have religious and mythological significance in many cultures, including Norse, Greek, and European Christian tradition. Knowledge: The statement is correct. Assessment: Correct

Jensson 4y ago
But that isn't the score that ChatGPT uses to determine what to write. You could use that as a facts checker, and if you hooked that into the pipeline and used that fact checking to decide what statements to show to the user then now your model has a fact checking layer, it will make some errors but it is probably better than current ChatGPT. So if you argue that we can use ChatGPT to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate it would be, but at least then we have something that tries to evaluate truthiness. But ChatGPT itself doesn't use such a layer, so it doesn't have a truth model.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Let me alter this a bit: "So if you argue that we can use a human to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate they would be, but at least then we have someone that tries to evaluate truthiness. But the human itself doesn't use such a layer, so they don't have a truth model." It reads to me that you presume that "a fact checking layer" must be a dedicated thing and can't be just an application of a general conversation. It also seems that you presume that humans have such a special fact-checking layer, other than just an application of general conversaion (cause you say that humans have a truth model, cause a truth model can't exist without this layer). Why are you making that assumption?
- coldtea 4y ago
  >So if you argue that we can use ChatGPT to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate it would be, but at least then we have something that tries to evaluate truthiness. But ChatGPT itself doesn't use such a layer, so it doesn't have a truth model. Why would it need such a layer? That's begging the question. The parent just asked ChatGPT to do fact checking, and it did, with success. It could get it wrong sometimes too, but then so can humans. But you're "no true Scotchman" it hard, as well as "moving the goalposts", and "begging the question"... If it can use the corpus + the output selection mechanism it has to perform fact checking when you ask it to, and the output it gives matches with the expected results we'd expect from someone doing fact-checking (or is even better than how some humans would go about it), then it does fact-checking. That's regardless of whether it has some dedicated "fact-checking" faculty or its result is "just" the result of a huge markov-chain like process. Heck, humans can be said to also not have any dedicated "fact-checking faculty" as nobody has ever built one. We just have neurons and weighted connections between them. The "fact checking" we do is just a result of a general purpose machinery: those neurons firing and being connected in particular patterns as trained by real world sensory input during our lifetime. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it doesn't have a mystical "duck" layer.

Jensson 4y ago

But that isn't the score that ChatGPT uses to determine what to write. You could use that as a facts checker, and if you hooked that into the pipeline and used that fact checking to decide what statements to show to the user then now your model has a fact checking layer, it will make some errors but it is probably better than current ChatGPT. So if you argue that we can use ChatGPT to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate it would be, but at least then we have something that tries to evaluate truthiness. But ChatGPT itself doesn't use such a layer, so it doesn't have a truth model.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
Let me alter this a bit: "So if you argue that we can use a human to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate they would be, but at least then we have someone that tries to evaluate truthiness. But the human itself doesn't use such a layer, so they don't have a truth model." It reads to me that you presume that "a fact checking layer" must be a dedicated thing and can't be just an application of a general conversation. It also seems that you presume that humans have such a special fact-checking layer, other than just an application of general conversaion (cause you say that humans have a truth model, cause a truth model can't exist without this layer). Why are you making that assumption?
coldtea 4y ago
>So if you argue that we can use ChatGPT to make a fact checker then I agree. It is unclear how accurate it would be, but at least then we have something that tries to evaluate truthiness. But ChatGPT itself doesn't use such a layer, so it doesn't have a truth model. Why would it need such a layer? That's begging the question. The parent just asked ChatGPT to do fact checking, and it did, with success. It could get it wrong sometimes too, but then so can humans. But you're "no true Scotchman" it hard, as well as "moving the goalposts", and "begging the question"... If it can use the corpus + the output selection mechanism it has to perform fact checking when you ask it to, and the output it gives matches with the expected results we'd expect from someone doing fact-checking (or is even better than how some humans would go about it), then it does fact-checking. That's regardless of whether it has some dedicated "fact-checking" faculty or its result is "just" the result of a huge markov-chain like process. Heck, humans can be said to also not have any dedicated "fact-checking faculty" as nobody has ever built one. We just have neurons and weighted connections between them. The "fact checking" we do is just a result of a general purpose machinery: those neurons firing and being connected in particular patterns as trained by real world sensory input during our lifetime. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it doesn't have a mystical "duck" layer.