7 ms·
Until AI can consistently and correctly answer to “where did you learn that?”, it is fundamentally defective as a technology and should absolutely be out of the
by celdon25 3y ago
Until AI can consistently and correctly answer to “where did you learn that?”, it is fundamentally defective as a technology and should absolutely be out of the question for attempts at AGI.
- robotresearcher 3y agoWhere did you learn that?
- beepbooptheory 3y ago?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adityamwagh 3y ago[flagged]
- asdfman123 3y agoOh, that’s easy, most of my opinions are regurgitations of other comments I’ve read, or headlines I’ve skimmed.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoI know the question is meant to be flippant, but are you not aware of where you learned most things? For any of my post-1st-grade vocabulary, I remember the first time I saw the word in print, or where I heard it. I'd qualify that to say for most non-daily words, except that I don't believe there were many of those for me after I started school.
- SanderNL 3y agoI am absolutely not aware of where I learned most things. I acknowledge you as my superior.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- robotresearcher 3y agoNot flippant at all. I’m interested in the answer, and whether the answer supports the strong claim or not. Do you know where you learned your opinions on a novel question? How?
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoThere's a difference between accumulating raw knowledge and deriving or performing logical inference to reach conclusions. I can tell you where I learned many things, cite papers off the top of my head or at least retrieve them, but I can't tell you about knowledge that I derived / synthesized on my own.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoSo your trains of thought are ephemeral too?
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoIt's more that chains of trains of thought are used to derive knowledge, and said chains can be distributed across space, and across time, so you can't necessarily attribute a single place.
- somenameforme 3y agoHe is almost certainly referring to factual type queries of the sorts including 'how to do x in y.' About the zillionth time you get 'I'm sorry, you're right, [blah] doesn't exist. Here's [something else that doesn't exist]', it gets really frustrating. The worst part is you can often tell the software is referencing some relevant page(s), but just inappropriately mixing them with other stuff. And so if you could simply get the link it'd be far more helpful than listening to the program continuing to describe in immaculate detail how to use an API that does exactly what you're looking for, with the slight problem that it doesn't exist.
- red_trumpet 3y agoBing chat has references to relevant pages
- rekado 3y agoIt is frustrating to see this idea that human learning and machine learning are essentially the same repeated uncritically. Humans can't possibly remember provenance of all information. Machines possibly could. There's a significant difference in capabilities and it would be unwise to ignore this.
- ehnto 3y agoI don't know that they could, well not LLMs, as they aren't picking from linked data just from the subsequent model generated by combining information derived from that data. I suspect a map of all those links would be bigger than the input data. They could have 10,000 occurances that told them to use the word dog in a response to the question "what is man's best friend?" Also, the answer to where did they learn which town to use for "Where and when were grapes introduced into Australia?" seems to be "Actually, I didn't know, I just picked from a list of Australian towns and made the factual link up"
- newswasboring 3y ago> Humans can't possibly remember provenance of all information. Machines possibly could Machines can already do that. We have many, many memory mechanism for llm these days. There are already search engine like sites like phind.com which are rigorous about the sources. Langchain has tools to retrieve and cite memory from doc stores, APIs etc. If I ask my langchain agent "where did you learn that" or "why are you saying this" it does a decent job of citing the source. Now, if your objection is that these are not perfect, then I would like to welcome you to the rising part of the sigmoid function of progress. Access to openAI API directly gives better explanations to logic that was applied too. I do not understand this god of the gaps type debate that is going on regarding LLMs. Everyone just seems to be interested in pointing out flaws. They are all using the "I'm witholding my judgement words" but are in the "this is just garbage" tone.
- rekado 3y agoI did not write "fundamentally defective" -- I'm not OP. My point is merely that we should have high requirements and not excuse flaws in language models just because humans have them. That thinking is akin to apologetics and not constructive.
- maigret 3y agoThe sum of information I take in is way smaller (by a magnitude 8 or 9) than what the AI takes in. Partly there are clear trails of what I learn (browser history), and also partly my learnings come from the circles I am in - colleagues, friends, education... I can't regurgitate the whole content like a machine, but can constrain the options strongly and also most often say "I am 100% confident this is true, this probably sure but not fully, and this I don't know". In the case of the GP, checking where something has been learned or inferred by AI is something I learned from reading articles as well as participating in discussions with colleagues over AI explainability/transparency, as well as reading articles and listening to podcasts over journalism and truth in the age of AI. In fact I know what my 3 to 5 biggest influences/sources on that topic are. They might not be the one who invented the topic and answer, but I know who passed it to me.
- robotresearcher 3y agoUnlike an LLM you have been in a sensorimotor loop with the world for a couple of decades at least. The effective bitrate of your senses is probably pretty high. You’ve seen a thing or two, even if you haven’t read the entire web. You’ve seen and participated in causal processes over and over.
- ftxbro 3y agoIs this how far AI skeptics have moved the line? Interesting.
- Retric 3y agoNo, that’s not the line for AI skeptics. As far as I am concerned LLM offer little more than a cool tech demo. They suffer from the same failing that results in AI art often suffering from basic flaws like extra arms. Better fakes aren’t closer to the actual solution they’re simply optimized for a different metric. What seems revolutionary today is going to feel as useless as 3D TV’s once the novelty wares off.
- mdale 3y agoHmm have they not corrected the arm issue ? Won't the technology evolve to tackle it's shortcomings as it always has ? I don't think we complain about digital projection vs film the same way we did 20 years ago ?
- Retric 3y agoDifferent technology often wins even if it looks like old technology. The early EV’s as in 1900’s where using fundamentally flawed battery chemistry. Simply improving lead acid batteries wasn’t going to work. Similarly GPT45 is likely to have similar fundamental differences from current LLM’s.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoA thing doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. For the same prompt it can generate an arbitrary number of images. Some of them will be useless garbage, but that doesn't matter if you can spend 30 seconds to throw those out and then keep the good one that would have taken someone half a day to produce by hand.
- Retric 3y agoI am specifically objecting to LLM’s rather than art because the output just isn’t useful to me. With art you can discard the output with a glance try again so it’s not a waste of time. With text however you’re stuck carefully checking for errors and there is going to be many many errs. Now most students might not care because the grading is generally lenient, but having say a PHD thesis, resume, or professional work riddled with subtle errors is a more serious problem. I personally just don’t see any real value in low quality output. The time I waste correcting it is longer than just doing it myself and maintaining your reputation is important so doing a poor job on unimportant things isn’t a good long term strategy. If you’re stuck at the level of “fiver” get good is just so much more valuable than get fast.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoHow did you come to that conclusion?
- celdon25 3y agoFirst, you tell me why you think it's okay for strong AI systems to be built from and toward the ethos of "Believe everything you hear on the Internet"
- js8 3y agoYou're correct, but this applies not to AI in general, but to AI used as a web search technology. That's the advantage traditional search has - I can see the links where the output came from. With AI, it's unclear how was the data compiled.
- hzay 3y agoCan humans answer that? Isn't that a totally random question to use to determine whether something is "fundamentally defective"?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]