5 ms·

> I think this inability to distinguish what is clearly wrong will turn out to be the Achilles heel of LLM's and will limit usage to non-critical "fun"/"enterta

> I think this inability to distinguish what is clearly wrong will turn out to be the Achilles heel of LLM's and will limit usage to non-critical "fun"/"entertainment" type use cases. GPT 4 was released for GA March 14th, 34 days ago. Yet ironically everyone is now a LLM expert making broad claims that it’s not good enough for this that or the other. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

dragontamer 4y ago
GPT2, GPT3, and ChatGPT had a bullshit problem. Turns out the bullshit problem is still in GPT4, but it just says the bullshit more elegantly. I think it's safe to predict that ChatGPT5 will even more eloquently speak bullshit. -------- This is useful for entertainment, creative writing, fiction, etc. Etc. But it's a critical flaw in other applications.
- muyuu 4y ago
  I don't have plus, but 3.5 is already pretty impressive at bullshitting sometimes it tells me bullshit so plausible and so eloquently expressed you can't help but being impressed, despite knowing for a fact it's a pack of lies they're also original lies you wouldn't find anywhere online
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Yeh it’s shocking, the level of bullshit is almost at the level of my coworkers. I’m just waiting for the day we can get humans to stop hallucinating even after 40 years of deep learning.
    - muyuu 4y ago
      I think the potential for generating elaborate urban legends of this technology is phenomenal. I wonder if this will become a game changer in the future on this feature alone.
hackcasual 4y ago
These aren't mystery systems. While the sheer volume of data makes individual outputs difficult to understand how they were derived, the systems operation are well understood. These are statistical models of language. They don't have the ability to reason or reflect. Hence bullshit. It'll be interesting to see if the work around augmenting/plugins is able to reduce the amount of bullshitting, but I suspect the sophistication mis-match between LLMs and supervisory systems means there will always be a baseline level of bullshit.
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  >the systems operation are well understood That's like saying human behavior is well understood because we know how neurons communicate signals. It's too low level to be useful, hence psychology. >They don't have the ability to reason or reflect. Yes they do https://selfrefine.info/ https://selfrefine.info/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    Amazes me how much this is downvoted despite providing citations and being essentially correct (barring a tedious philosophical debate and assuming good faith) - and in a thread specifically calling out "armchair ML experts"!
  - runningStone 4y ago
    so...can we split knowledge part and reasoning/improving/refining part, and make LLM to smaller one?
    - famouswaffles 4y ago
      Theoretically...maybe. But even if you could genuinely separate reasoning from knowledge, we simply don't know how.

dragontamer 4y ago

GPT2, GPT3, and ChatGPT had a bullshit problem. Turns out the bullshit problem is still in GPT4, but it just says the bullshit more elegantly. I think it's safe to predict that ChatGPT5 will even more eloquently speak bullshit. -------- This is useful for entertainment, creative writing, fiction, etc. Etc. But it's a critical flaw in other applications.

muyuu 4y ago
I don't have plus, but 3.5 is already pretty impressive at bullshitting sometimes it tells me bullshit so plausible and so eloquently expressed you can't help but being impressed, despite knowing for a fact it's a pack of lies they're also original lies you wouldn't find anywhere online
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Yeh it’s shocking, the level of bullshit is almost at the level of my coworkers. I’m just waiting for the day we can get humans to stop hallucinating even after 40 years of deep learning.
  - muyuu 4y ago
    I think the potential for generating elaborate urban legends of this technology is phenomenal. I wonder if this will become a game changer in the future on this feature alone.

hackcasual 4y ago

These aren't mystery systems. While the sheer volume of data makes individual outputs difficult to understand how they were derived, the systems operation are well understood. These are statistical models of language. They don't have the ability to reason or reflect. Hence bullshit. It'll be interesting to see if the work around augmenting/plugins is able to reduce the amount of bullshitting, but I suspect the sophistication mis-match between LLMs and supervisory systems means there will always be a baseline level of bullshit.

famouswaffles 4y ago
>the systems operation are well understood That's like saying human behavior is well understood because we know how neurons communicate signals. It's too low level to be useful, hence psychology. >They don't have the ability to reason or reflect. Yes they do https://selfrefine.info/ https://selfrefine.info/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  Amazes me how much this is downvoted despite providing citations and being essentially correct (barring a tedious philosophical debate and assuming good faith) - and in a thread specifically calling out "armchair ML experts"!
- runningStone 4y ago
  so...can we split knowledge part and reasoning/improving/refining part, and make LLM to smaller one?
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    Theoretically...maybe. But even if you could genuinely separate reasoning from knowledge, we simply don't know how.