4 ms·

This is a different argument. Explaining reasoning != citing sources. The latter is a solved problem if not for the implicit obfuscation in the LLM data (though

This is a different argument. Explaining reasoning != citing sources. The latter is a solved problem if not for the implicit obfuscation in the LLM data (though that also depends on the complexity of the reasoning used to derive the response, factual assertions should be identifiable and verifiable). It would not need to be part of the AI prompt response itself. Including it in API metadata response is sufficient.

ftxbro 3y ago
Sorry I don't understand what you're talking about. When you say this is a different argument, which arguments are you saying are different from each other? When you say explaining reasoning is different from citing sources, why are you talking about citing sources?
- celdon25 3y ago
  > When you say explaining reasoning is different from citing sources, why are you talking about citing sources? Because that's what I was referring to and you moved the goalposts. Sources are a necessary part of the knowledge metadata so that truth weights can be taken into account. Otherwise the data's reliability factor isn't a first-class concept within the system. Citing the sources consistently serves as proof that the system does this (trust), and allows the end user to verify (at least to a reasonable level). My point was that while ChatGPT might be a viable product, an actual AGI system should not be attempted to be built atop a LLM that can't do this. Here is a system that does do this. https://wiki.opencog.org/w/AtomSpace https://wiki.opencog.org/w/AtomSpace
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    > Because that's what I was referring to and you moved the goalposts. Oh I understand it now. Your original top level comment was about citing sources and then the comment by some third one a couple layers deep about Gerald Sussman changed from 'citing sources' to 'explaining reasoning'. Sorry I got confused because the thread got so deep.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    I wish there was some better wordings to distinguish between the viewpoint like 'I don't think this AI approach is technically capable of making AGI' compared to 'I think this AI approach is probably capable of making AGI but I don't think it would be a good idea because the AGI would have some bad properties like we can't trust it'

ftxbro 3y ago

Sorry I don't understand what you're talking about. When you say this is a different argument, which arguments are you saying are different from each other? When you say explaining reasoning is different from citing sources, why are you talking about citing sources?

celdon25 3y ago
> When you say explaining reasoning is different from citing sources, why are you talking about citing sources? Because that's what I was referring to and you moved the goalposts. Sources are a necessary part of the knowledge metadata so that truth weights can be taken into account. Otherwise the data's reliability factor isn't a first-class concept within the system. Citing the sources consistently serves as proof that the system does this (trust), and allows the end user to verify (at least to a reasonable level). My point was that while ChatGPT might be a viable product, an actual AGI system should not be attempted to be built atop a LLM that can't do this. Here is a system that does do this. https://wiki.opencog.org/w/AtomSpace https://wiki.opencog.org/w/AtomSpace
- ftxbro 3y ago
  > Because that's what I was referring to and you moved the goalposts. Oh I understand it now. Your original top level comment was about citing sources and then the comment by some third one a couple layers deep about Gerald Sussman changed from 'citing sources' to 'explaining reasoning'. Sorry I got confused because the thread got so deep.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  I wish there was some better wordings to distinguish between the viewpoint like 'I don't think this AI approach is technically capable of making AGI' compared to 'I think this AI approach is probably capable of making AGI but I don't think it would be a good idea because the AGI would have some bad properties like we can't trust it'