2 ms·

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

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.

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.