6 ms·
How do you manage the hallucination problems, or do you not seem to be having them? I’m blown away by the competence of the language model but its willingness
by robotresearcher 4y ago
How do you manage the hallucination problems, or do you not seem to be having them?
I’m blown away by the competence of the language model but its willingness to make up facts makes me leary.
- cruano 4y ago> its willingness to make up facts makes me leary I see you haven't met humans
- stanac 4y agoWe can downvote human comments and proposed solution (on stack overflow, hn, etc...) and also I don't expect colleagues to lied to me when I ask them about a feature or how to do xyz in a language or library or framework. Bing, IIRC, has a way to provide feedback, not sure how useful it is for today's users and if it will be able to solve hallucinations one day.
- mark_l_watson 4y agoI try to always give Bing+ChatGPT chat or search results a thumbs up or a thumbs down. I am using the service for free, so it seems fair for me to take a moment to provide feedback.
- zouhair 4y agoHumans are actually quite reliable. Wikipedia is that trust manifested. Also a human liar knows they are lying, AI doesn't know it's saying something wrong.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThat's why we call it hallucinating rather than lying. Confusing the two is conceptually unhygienic.
- loandbehold 4y agoHumans can also give wrong information without realizing it.
- vkou 4y agoThe average human is going to give me the wrong answer to a question I ask him. But I'm generally not interested in asking an average human. I'm interested in asking someone who knows their butt from a hole in the ground in whichever topic I'm asking them about.
- CactusOnFire 4y agoWhen google sends me to a website, I can at least judge the credibility of a website. When ChatGPT tells me something, I have no idea if it's paraphrasing information gathered from Encyclopedia Britannica, or from a hollow-earther forum.
- Spivak 4y agoWhich is why you use one of the AI search engines that makes it cite its sources. phind.com has been incredibly good for me.
- livueta 4y agoThis is a real question, so I apologize if it comes off as sophistry: Is the work of judging the accuracy of a summary not just the work of comprehending the non-summarized field? For example, a summary could be completely correct and cite its facts exhaustively. Say you're asking about available operating systems: it tells you a bunch of true info about Windows and OSX, but doesn't mention the existence of Linux. Without familiarity with the territory, wouldn't verifying the factuality of each reference still leave you with an incomplete picture? At a slightly more practical level, do you actually save any time if you've gotta fully verify the sources? I assume you're doing more than just making sure the link doesn't 404, as citing a link that doesn't say what it is made out to be isn't exactly a new problem, but at that point we're mighty close to the traditional experience of running through a SERP. Finally, even if you're reading all the links in detail, isn't that still a situation prone to automation bias? There's a lot of examples of cases where humans are supposed to check machine output, but if it's usually good enough the checkers fall into a pattern of trusting it too much and skipping work. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I think I'd eventually get less gung-ho about verifying sources and eventually do myself a mischief. I'm asking because I've been underwhelmed by my own attempts at using LMs for search tasks, so maybe I'm doing it wrong.
- worrycue 4y ago> When ChatGPT tells me something, I have no idea if it's paraphrasing information gathered from Encyclopedia Britannica, or from a hollow-earther forum. Or it's something it just hallucinated out of thin air.
- Kye 4y agoCitations! I never trust Bing Chat's answer. The links usually quickly tell you if the answer is hallucinated. Basically: treat it as a search engine, not an answer engine. Follow the links like you would on any other search engine. Those links will still be more relevant.
- robotresearcher 4y agoIt happily made up citations for me. In a follow up, I asked it not too, and to please use only real papers. It apologized, said it would not do it again, then in the same reply made up another non-existent but plausible citation. Checking the links is a good practice. I feel like we just created an interesting novel problem in the world. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
- bastardoperator 4y agoSounds like you should be doing the research yourself but are relying on an untrusted source to feed you answers? I don't think we're there yet...
- robotresearcher 4y agoOn the contrary, I was doing a calibration, asking about something to which I know the answers very well. To see if it was trustworthy.
- brookst 4y agoAre you talking about Bing Chat, which cites actual web pages it used to make the summary, or ChatGPT, which is a very different beast and relies on built-in knowledge rather than searches?
- robotresearcher 4y agoGood call. I was using ChatGPT.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago95% of what I search for, I can independently confirm once I have it in hand. For the other 5%, I avoid ChatGPT.
- vanviegen 4y agoReminds me of Knoll’s law of media accuracy: “everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge”. Humans are pretty good bullshitters too!
- onlypositive 4y agoBing generating snippets of text from websites isn't going to generate hallucinations like you think it is.
- malaya_zemlya 4y agoIt totally would, if Bing doesn't return relevant results. I've asked BingGPT about myself and it gave me three answers. One was more or less on-point (it found my linkedin profile), and the other two were hallucinations. What happened was Bing found two unrelated pages and GPT has tried and failed to make sense of them. Either that, or I am a prince whose name means "goose" in Polish.
- rchaud 4y agoNewspapers print their errata though. Does ChatGPT ever admit to making a mistake?
- scandox 4y agoWhat I've found is that until you see it really hallucinate like mad on a subject you know well you don't realize how crazy it can be. Especially when I talk to it about fiction and ask questions about - for example - a specific story and you see it invent whole quotes and characters and so on...it is a masterful bullshitter.
- caeril 4y agoHallucination problem is easily solved by using it as a code/config template or starter, and actually vetting its output. It's still a huge time-saver, even with the vetting time involved. Cold War strategy. Trust but Verify.
- qbrass 4y agoLet the car drive itself, but do all the work of driving anyway so you can take the wheel when it screws up.
- loandbehold 4y agoThat was a problem for ChatGPT3. Not so much for ChatGPT4. I also switched to ChatGPT4 for most of my searches. I only use Google now as a shortcut for navigating to specific website.
- xapata 4y ago> leary Leary is a rare variant spelling of leery. I mention this, because you seem to care about correctness.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoIs this really a problem? What could be more 2020s than a post-truth search engine?
- rmbyrro 4y agoGPT4 got a lot better at avoiding hallucinations, in my anecdotal experiences. But it ain't free yet.
- atlantic 4y agoLeery