4 ms·

There are errors in humans truth models, yes, but at least they have one. Humans recognize that checking the structure of the text and checking the facts in the

There are errors in humans truth models, yes, but at least they have one. Humans recognize that checking the structure of the text and checking the facts in the text are two different tasks, so we can train humans to check facts better without worsening their ability to structure text and vice versa, that is the important bit. For ChatGPT those two are the same thing, if you give more variance you will get more unstructured text which will result in more falsehoods, you can't control its truthiness without altering other behaviours.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
You're conflating what ChatGPT does with fact checking. It's as much a fact checker as a human is a fact checker. It's not their purpose to be either a grammar checker or a fact checker, so you can't make assumptions about the models they have just yet. You can instruct a human to do fact checking, just like you can instruct ChatGPT to do it. You can instruct ChatGPT to structure text. Have you compared its output in both cases? Does it affect both parameters the same (from what I've seen, I don't expect that)?
coldtea 4y ago
>There are errors in humans truth models, yes, but at least they have one. Humans recognize that checking the structure of the text and checking the facts in the text are two different tasks Asserting that it's "two different tasks" doesn't necessarily make it true. Humans checking the "structure of the text" stop their check at the text-structure (syntax) layer, whereas humans checking "the facts of the text" also check the validity of what's in the text. That doesn't mean that the operation they internally perform to do the first task isn't the same as the one for the second task (just with a different goal, so e.g. stopping earlier). GPT's "checking the structure of the text" happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information. Human's "checking the structure of the text" also happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information (as encoded in its neurons). Well, human's "checking of facts" ALSO happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information. So, why couldn't ChatGPT "checking of facts" exist and work the same way? At which point is there a necessity for some additional special faculty (and not just e.g. a matter of end-goal setting to calibrate the use of the same capacity of using "weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information")? We do know that we can ask ChatGPT to check a fact, and it will come with a conclusion about it. At which point do we need to sprinkle the magical "fact-checking" dust for this to be fact-checking?

rhn_mk1 4y ago

You're conflating what ChatGPT does with fact checking. It's as much a fact checker as a human is a fact checker. It's not their purpose to be either a grammar checker or a fact checker, so you can't make assumptions about the models they have just yet. You can instruct a human to do fact checking, just like you can instruct ChatGPT to do it. You can instruct ChatGPT to structure text. Have you compared its output in both cases? Does it affect both parameters the same (from what I've seen, I don't expect that)?

coldtea 4y ago

>There are errors in humans truth models, yes, but at least they have one. Humans recognize that checking the structure of the text and checking the facts in the text are two different tasks Asserting that it's "two different tasks" doesn't necessarily make it true. Humans checking the "structure of the text" stop their check at the text-structure (syntax) layer, whereas humans checking "the facts of the text" also check the validity of what's in the text. That doesn't mean that the operation they internally perform to do the first task isn't the same as the one for the second task (just with a different goal, so e.g. stopping earlier). GPT's "checking the structure of the text" happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information. Human's "checking the structure of the text" also happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information (as encoded in its neurons). Well, human's "checking of facts" ALSO happens through the use of weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information. So, why couldn't ChatGPT "checking of facts" exist and work the same way? At which point is there a necessity for some additional special faculty (and not just e.g. a matter of end-goal setting to calibrate the use of the same capacity of using "weighted connections created after being fed pieces of information")? We do know that we can ask ChatGPT to check a fact, and it will come with a conclusion about it. At which point do we need to sprinkle the magical "fact-checking" dust for this to be fact-checking?