5 ms·

> its willingness to make up facts makes me leary I see you haven't met humans

by cruano 4y ago

stanac 4y ago
We 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 3y ago
  I 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 ago
Humans 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 ago
  That's why we call it hallucinating rather than lying. Confusing the two is conceptually unhygienic.
- loandbehold 3y ago
  Humans can also give wrong information without realizing it.
vkou 3y ago
The 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 3y ago
When 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 3y ago
  Which 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 3y ago
    This 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 3y 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.

> its willingness to make up facts makes me leary I see you haven't met humans

by cruano 4y ago

> its willingness to make up facts makes me leary I see you haven't met humans

We 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 3y ago
I 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 ago

Humans 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 ago
That's why we call it hallucinating rather than lying. Confusing the two is conceptually unhygienic.
loandbehold 3y ago
Humans can also give wrong information without realizing it.

vkou 3y ago

The 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 3y ago

When 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 3y ago
Which 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 3y ago
  This 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 3y 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.