3 ms·
You could make exactly the same argument for consulting psychics, astrologers, and tarot readers. Indeed, I think what a lot of people are doing with LLM outpu
by wpietri 4y ago
You could make exactly the same argument for consulting psychics, astrologers, and tarot readers.
Indeed, I think what a lot of people are doing with LLM output is the same thing customers of paranormal scams do. Faced with artfully constructed ambiguity, they fill in the blanks themselves, not even noticing how much they're supplying the work. Some bit go well and some poorly; the successes are proof that the psychic has paranormal powers, and the rest are quickly forgotten about.
- famouswaffles 4y agoThe point is that a distinction without a difference is a meaningless distinction. Shouting "This is not real [insert property]" is beyond meaningless. Either this supposed difference is important enough to manifest in reality/output or it functionally doesn't exist. If rationalizations work as well as human ones do then treat them as you would human ones.
- wpietri 4y agoYes, ergo I believe there are differences. But you didn't address my point. Do you believe that explanations produced via tarot or zodiac should be treated with that same level of deference? That explanations from ouija boards are things we "might as well go with"?
- famouswaffles 4y agoGPT-4 doesn't not perform at the same level on tasks as a ouija board. The whole point is that the level of deference is based on the level of performance it exhibits on whatever task you're having it do.