3 ms·
You will have to proof read anything it writes and you should also fact check it, otherwise you are taking a risk. However, this is very difficult to do if GPT4
by grumpyprole 4y ago
You will have to proof read anything it writes and you should also fact check it, otherwise you are taking a risk. However, this is very difficult to do if GPT4 is unable to provide references or citations, or any provenance at all.
The human with the art history background at least has some credentials, whereby the output can be trusted, to some degree and explained if necessary.
- fauxpause_ 4y agoIf you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning; and a model that can generate text, the work required to create a model that can generate text and then query for other texts that support its claims is not very hard. This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago> If you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning That model doesn't exist. We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original. But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe. What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.
- fauxpause_ 4y agoOh please. If you can produce a summary of content, you’ve captured the meaning. I asked 3.5 to do it for you. > The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is: > "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe." It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]