3 ms·

I know they aren't optimized for truth, that was the point of my comment. But based on my own experience of showing people ChatGPT, without explaining the flaws

• mikewarot 4y ago
  2 was about my feeling that pretty much anything that is a "fact" seems to dissolve here on HN. Restated thus: The quickest way to falsify something is to state it as a fact here on HN.
• mistermann 4y ago
  Even here there are epistemic issues: >> This actually gets at the heart of the problem with the current batch of LLMs. Here you are implying that the fault lies [solely] with LLMs. >> They have no concept of truth, and so will gladly generate tokens that are "likely", but are at best clearly wrong, or worse look correct to a non-expert, but are subtly wrong. Hear you are asserting that you have the means yourself to reach truth. This is extremely easy to do if you're speaking abstractly, but try executing that at the concrete level (as above) and it's pretty difficult to avoid imperfection. Regarding the difficulty of truth, is the problem here entirely with LLMs, or is the problem with reality itself? When ChatGPT (or anyone/anything) says something "is" true (and some people agree) someone else says it "is" not, how are we to decide which is correct? Where does this "is" that people "are [only] perceiving" come from? Where, and what, "is" "reality"? Is the universe equal/identical to reality? That's how a lot of people talk...but is it true? INB4 "we could all be brains in jars", which is one of the most common responses to arise "purely by coincidence" when this topic is raised.