3 ms·
> 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
by 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]