4 ms·

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers th

by mojuba 4y ago

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't even tell when it's wrong.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Don’t rely on floating point accuracy!
- coldtea 4y ago
  Those are predictably correct and incorrept, in a very formal way!
coldtea 4y ago
>I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always And yet Excel is widely popular, despite several footguns and inaccurate calculations!
- neatze 4y ago
  Excel has consistent (I guess coherent) flaws/bugs, unlike GPT.
block_dagger 4y ago
Imagine a life or death situation where a calculation held the key. Would you rather use a calculator that is right 50% of the time or 99% of the time. The obvious choice highlights that the utility is not exactly zero. But I see your point.
creatonez 4y ago
So what about large asteroid strike levels of improbability? I have to reject your premise that there is no probability where you can stop worrying about the problem. (This might be a moot point, because I'm not sure current methods can ever get to this level of accuracy, due to limitations of the training data. Needs an entirely new method or a clever insight to optimize for truthfulness with unclean training data, and InstructGPT hasn't made much progress on this, and it might not even be possible)
drinfinity 4y ago
Confining an LLM to the very narrow domain of "calculators" is a mistake, I think. You wouldn't say "a programmer that is 99% correct is worthless, I need 100%". I'm pushing it, but for a more fair comparison I'd say measure it against a programmer. How often are we wrong? 75% of the time? :) being generous here. It's the tools that make us productive. I don't know about you specifically, but I don't think you'll be very productive with a bare terminal lacking any modern IDE-like or even REPL facilities. I'll ask you to come up with instantly working code every time, all the time. It doesn't work like that. You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. There are wrong sometimes (often) and need feedback.
- mojuba 4y ago
  > You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. It's funny how we resort to humanizing the machines when their results are inaccurate. We don't do that with the calculator, because it's expected to be 100% bug free. When there's a bug in the calculator code we expect it to be fixed, not gradually improved. Speaking of bugs: mistakes in code is one thing, wrong output because of a fundamental flaw in the algorithm is another. The statistical machines we are dealing with work as intended, or at least the wrong output the top comment here brings up is not a bug, it's a feature. That's the difference.
  - drinfinity 4y ago
    That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still think approaching this as a "calculator" is awkward at best.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      > Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance Computers are extremely close to 100%, we generally expect a CPU to never make errors even after years of working. If it starts making any errors at all we throw it away and make a new one.
magicalhippo 4y ago
Surely this is "just" a matter of teaching the LLM to recognize this is a job for say Wolfram Aplha and generate a query to it, then feed the response back to you?
sophiabits 4y ago
I suspect that humans have an accuracy lower than 99.999%, and are similarly capable of producing confidently incorrect results. GPT has a lot of hype and hysteria around it, but demanding 100% accuracy from it is a bit over the top imo. It doesn't need to have 100% accuracy on any arbitrary prompt in order to be a useful and valuable tool.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  "It doesn't need to have 100% accuracy on any arbitrary prompt in order to be a useful and valuable tool." Yet anything less than represents a danger. Never underestimate stupid.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    Especially don't underestimate automated stupid
- FrustratedMonky 4y ago
  Yes. WE have a higher standard for computers. But humans produce a ton of bull shit answers. Are we trying to produce an 'answer machine' or a 'human mimic'. Because the bull shit makes it more human. And a wrong answer does not mean it's broken, what goes on in its neural net to produce a confident wrong answer might be similar to our own.
stockboss 4y ago
have you ever got on an airplane? are you aware that they are not 100% safe?
- aldarisbm 4y ago
  airplanes do not execute in a vacuum eg: computer. There are external factors that might cause an airplane to fail. A fully working airplane all things equal in terms of weather and a good pilot, will be safe.
  - stockboss 4y ago
    you're missing the point. my point was: if everyone waited til something is 100% safe/complete/satisfaction guaranteed, there would be no progress in human civilization. we need to be willing to take a chance on a promising technology in order to allow for further progress. imagine if everyone said i'll wait for planes to be 100% safety guaranteed before i'll get on one - we wouldn't be flying today.
makapuf 4y ago
Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately.
- WoodenChair 4y ago
  > Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately. I see this analogy all the time in these comment sections but it's not a very good one. A person is not a tool. One of the great achievements of humanity, and in computing in particular, is that we make tools that are more accurate than we are. I expect a hammer to deliver a hard forward blow 100% of the time. If one out of one hundred times it delivers a hard backward blow, I cannot use it on a job site due to risk of injury to the user. The same is true of a calculator being used for financial transactions. And the same is true of a LLM that would be used for drug interactions as discussed in this thread. We already have 100% accurate ways of pulling data from a drug database—it's called SQL. A tool that is not as accurate is in at least some ways a step backward, even if it's easier to use due to its natural language interface.
  - Satam 4y ago
    Except hammers already do not work as expected 100% of the time, as evident by them painfully hitting the hands of the workers in mishaps. Yet we still use them.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      How is a hammer "not working as expected" if you hit your hand with it? This makes no sense. If I hit my hand with a hammer, what am I supposed to expect except causing pain and injury? If I try to light a cigarette and accidentally set my beard on fire due to my own clumsyness, did the lighter malfunction? No, the lighter did exactly what it was supposed to do, it was my hand that didn't do what I expected.
      - 4y ago
worldsayshi 4y ago
Gpt is not a calculator. I suspect that it could solve calculator problems if it was given a calculator though.
bulbosaur123 4y ago
So connect GPT4 with calculator using LangChain, problem solved!

by mojuba 4y ago

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Don’t rely on floating point accuracy!

coldtea 4y ago
Those are predictably correct and incorrept, in a very formal way!

coldtea 4y ago

>I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always And yet Excel is widely popular, despite several footguns and inaccurate calculations!

neatze 4y ago
Excel has consistent (I guess coherent) flaws/bugs, unlike GPT.

block_dagger 4y ago

Imagine a life or death situation where a calculation held the key. Would you rather use a calculator that is right 50% of the time or 99% of the time. The obvious choice highlights that the utility is not exactly zero. But I see your point.

creatonez 4y ago

So what about large asteroid strike levels of improbability? I have to reject your premise that there is no probability where you can stop worrying about the problem. (This might be a moot point, because I'm not sure current methods can ever get to this level of accuracy, due to limitations of the training data. Needs an entirely new method or a clever insight to optimize for truthfulness with unclean training data, and InstructGPT hasn't made much progress on this, and it might not even be possible)

drinfinity 4y ago

Confining an LLM to the very narrow domain of "calculators" is a mistake, I think. You wouldn't say "a programmer that is 99% correct is worthless, I need 100%". I'm pushing it, but for a more fair comparison I'd say measure it against a programmer. How often are we wrong? 75% of the time? :) being generous here. It's the tools that make us productive. I don't know about you specifically, but I don't think you'll be very productive with a bare terminal lacking any modern IDE-like or even REPL facilities. I'll ask you to come up with instantly working code every time, all the time. It doesn't work like that. You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. There are wrong sometimes (often) and need feedback.

mojuba 4y ago
> You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. It's funny how we resort to humanizing the machines when their results are inaccurate. We don't do that with the calculator, because it's expected to be 100% bug free. When there's a bug in the calculator code we expect it to be fixed, not gradually improved. Speaking of bugs: mistakes in code is one thing, wrong output because of a fundamental flaw in the algorithm is another. The statistical machines we are dealing with work as intended, or at least the wrong output the top comment here brings up is not a bug, it's a feature. That's the difference.
- drinfinity 4y ago
  That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still think approaching this as a "calculator" is awkward at best.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    > Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance Computers are extremely close to 100%, we generally expect a CPU to never make errors even after years of working. If it starts making any errors at all we throw it away and make a new one.

magicalhippo 4y ago

Surely this is "just" a matter of teaching the LLM to recognize this is a job for say Wolfram Aplha and generate a query to it, then feed the response back to you?

sophiabits 4y ago

I suspect that humans have an accuracy lower than 99.999%, and are similarly capable of producing confidently incorrect results. GPT has a lot of hype and hysteria around it, but demanding 100% accuracy from it is a bit over the top imo. It doesn't need to have 100% accuracy on any arbitrary prompt in order to be a useful and valuable tool.

shanebellone 4y ago
"It doesn't need to have 100% accuracy on any arbitrary prompt in order to be a useful and valuable tool." Yet anything less than represents a danger. Never underestimate stupid.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  Especially don't underestimate automated stupid
FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Yes. WE have a higher standard for computers. But humans produce a ton of bull shit answers. Are we trying to produce an 'answer machine' or a 'human mimic'. Because the bull shit makes it more human. And a wrong answer does not mean it's broken, what goes on in its neural net to produce a confident wrong answer might be similar to our own.

stockboss 4y ago

have you ever got on an airplane? are you aware that they are not 100% safe?

aldarisbm 4y ago
airplanes do not execute in a vacuum eg: computer. There are external factors that might cause an airplane to fail. A fully working airplane all things equal in terms of weather and a good pilot, will be safe.
- stockboss 4y ago
  you're missing the point. my point was: if everyone waited til something is 100% safe/complete/satisfaction guaranteed, there would be no progress in human civilization. we need to be willing to take a chance on a promising technology in order to allow for further progress. imagine if everyone said i'll wait for planes to be 100% safety guaranteed before i'll get on one - we wouldn't be flying today.

makapuf 4y ago

Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately.

WoodenChair 4y ago
> Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately. I see this analogy all the time in these comment sections but it's not a very good one. A person is not a tool. One of the great achievements of humanity, and in computing in particular, is that we make tools that are more accurate than we are. I expect a hammer to deliver a hard forward blow 100% of the time. If one out of one hundred times it delivers a hard backward blow, I cannot use it on a job site due to risk of injury to the user. The same is true of a calculator being used for financial transactions. And the same is true of a LLM that would be used for drug interactions as discussed in this thread. We already have 100% accurate ways of pulling data from a drug database—it's called SQL. A tool that is not as accurate is in at least some ways a step backward, even if it's easier to use due to its natural language interface.
- Satam 4y ago
  Except hammers already do not work as expected 100% of the time, as evident by them painfully hitting the hands of the workers in mishaps. Yet we still use them.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    How is a hammer "not working as expected" if you hit your hand with it? This makes no sense. If I hit my hand with a hammer, what am I supposed to expect except causing pain and injury? If I try to light a cigarette and accidentally set my beard on fire due to my own clumsyness, did the lighter malfunction? No, the lighter did exactly what it was supposed to do, it was my hand that didn't do what I expected.
    - 4y ago

worldsayshi 4y ago

Gpt is not a calculator. I suspect that it could solve calculator problems if it was given a calculator though.

bulbosaur123 4y ago

So connect GPT4 with calculator using LangChain, problem solved!