5 ms·

Psst ... why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? Get those personalised explanations and enjoy its unlimited

Psst ... why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? Get those personalised explanations and enjoy its unlimited patience. I have felt the same in the past, related to a completely different topic. I know how it feels, it's like people are not saying things what they are, just using weird words. "weights" - synapses in the AI brain "tokens" - word fragments "model" - of course, the model is the AI brain "context" - the model can only handle a piece of text, can't put whole books in, so this limited window is the context "GPT" - predicts the next word, trained on everything; if you feed its last predicted word back in, it can write long texts "LoRA" - a lightweight plug-in model for tweaking the big model "loss" - a score telling how bad is the output "training" - change the model until it fits the data "quantisation" - making a low precision version of the model because it still works, but now is much faster and needs less compute "embedding" - just a vector, it stands for the meaning of a word token or a piece of image; these embeddings are learned

agentdrtran 4y ago
> why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? when it can hallucinate content, why do that instead of reading a blog post from an expert?
- visarga 4y ago
  Oh no, it will hallucinate an obscure fact, but not basics. It's pretty good at reciting theory, it would pass many ML engineering theoretical interviews. If you don't trust its memory, copy a piece of high quality text in the topic of interest inside the context, as reference.
  - agentdrtran 4y ago
    it's repeatedly made up entire quotes and research papers?
tikkun 4y ago
I think this is the right answer, ChatGPT is an excellent 1-1 tutor.
rodoxcasta 4y ago
But, this isn't a bad ideia when you don't know even the basics? Because you wouldn't be able to separate genuine information to subtle or not so subtle hallucinations. It's like generating code in a language that you know nothing about. You should check for bugs, but you can't.
- hansvm 4y ago
  Anyone can evaluate whether it's giving you a self-consistent set of statements, and the additional words it spits out are helpful for a traditional search for alternative sources. IMO, so long as you're aware the information is often subtly wrong, it's not that different from, e.g., physics classes progressively lying to you less to allow your brain to build a framework to house the incoming ideas.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  The first thing to learn is you can’t trust the internet. From that you’ll know not to trust gpt. If you are prone to trusting things blindly, without doing your own research or verification, you have far bigger problems than gpt “hallucinations” (frankly a terrible terminology).
  - digging 4y ago
    I find "hallucinations" to be pretty apt. What works better in your opinion?
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      Lies. Bullshit. Con artistry. It's not perceiving reality incorrectly, it's presenting wholesale fiction as fact both coherently and with absolute confidence. It even forges supporting documentation ad-hoc. GPT is not a poor schizophrenic suffering from delusions or innocuous "hallucinations." It is the world's most advanced liar.
      - windsignaling 4y ago
cogitoergofutuo 4y ago
> Psst ... why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? I do not use ChatGPT as a search engine. Its ability to confidently hallucinate consistently places it much below a human expert on any topic that I care to understand correctly.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  That attitude is going to cost you. You'll have no choice but to abandon it at some point, as the LLM implementations get better. The improvements in GPT4 over 3.5 alone are enough to dispel a lot of my own initial skepticism.
  - cogitoergofutuo 4y ago
    > That attitude is going to cost you. I don’t think it will cost me much to not use the explicitly-not-a-search-engine thing as a search engine. Which LLM will you use to verify that ChatGPT is more knowledgeable than human experts on a given topic?
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      The thing is, your mistake isn't just distrusting the language model, it's trusting the search engine. No matter what tool you use, the responsibility for ensuring accuracy is ultimately yours. Similar degrees of caution and skepticism must be applied to results from both ML and traditional search engines. They are both insanely powerful tools, and like most insanely powerful tools, the hazards are considerable.
      - cogitoergofutuo 4y ago
        > The thing is, your mistake… This is a weird thing to write to a stranger. I suppose there will be no need to caution people about rudeness or making strange assumptions in the utopian future where humans only talk to chatbots, though.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Not the OP, I'm still hesitant because it infuriates me I have to give them my identity which they will then log every prompt against. You think they aren't building profiles on people? AI moties(more in gods eye reference )is what they are.
Salgat 4y ago
These are explanations that make sense to people who already know how deep learning works but don't really explain much to beginners beyond giving them a grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of what is being discussed (while not actually explaining anything). My advice to folks is, if you actually want to know how this stuff works at some basic level, put in some time learning how basic linear and logistic regression work, including how to train it using back propagation. From there you'll have a solid foundation that gives enough context to understand most deep learning concepts at a high level.
- visarga 4y ago
  It was intended as a demystification, not a total explanation. There are millions of places explaining with technical details.

agentdrtran 4y ago

> why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? when it can hallucinate content, why do that instead of reading a blog post from an expert?

visarga 4y ago
Oh no, it will hallucinate an obscure fact, but not basics. It's pretty good at reciting theory, it would pass many ML engineering theoretical interviews. If you don't trust its memory, copy a piece of high quality text in the topic of interest inside the context, as reference.
- agentdrtran 4y ago
  it's repeatedly made up entire quotes and research papers?

tikkun 4y ago

I think this is the right answer, ChatGPT is an excellent 1-1 tutor.

rodoxcasta 4y ago

But, this isn't a bad ideia when you don't know even the basics? Because you wouldn't be able to separate genuine information to subtle or not so subtle hallucinations. It's like generating code in a language that you know nothing about. You should check for bugs, but you can't.

hansvm 4y ago
Anyone can evaluate whether it's giving you a self-consistent set of statements, and the additional words it spits out are helpful for a traditional search for alternative sources. IMO, so long as you're aware the information is often subtly wrong, it's not that different from, e.g., physics classes progressively lying to you less to allow your brain to build a framework to house the incoming ideas.
2devnull 4y ago
The first thing to learn is you can’t trust the internet. From that you’ll know not to trust gpt. If you are prone to trusting things blindly, without doing your own research or verification, you have far bigger problems than gpt “hallucinations” (frankly a terrible terminology).
- digging 4y ago
  I find "hallucinations" to be pretty apt. What works better in your opinion?
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    Lies. Bullshit. Con artistry. It's not perceiving reality incorrectly, it's presenting wholesale fiction as fact both coherently and with absolute confidence. It even forges supporting documentation ad-hoc. GPT is not a poor schizophrenic suffering from delusions or innocuous "hallucinations." It is the world's most advanced liar.
    - windsignaling 4y ago

cogitoergofutuo 4y ago

> Psst ... why don't you spend 30 minutes of quality time with chatGPT and get to the bottom of this? I do not use ChatGPT as a search engine. Its ability to confidently hallucinate consistently places it much below a human expert on any topic that I care to understand correctly.

CamperBob2 4y ago
That attitude is going to cost you. You'll have no choice but to abandon it at some point, as the LLM implementations get better. The improvements in GPT4 over 3.5 alone are enough to dispel a lot of my own initial skepticism.
- cogitoergofutuo 4y ago
  > That attitude is going to cost you. I don’t think it will cost me much to not use the explicitly-not-a-search-engine thing as a search engine. Which LLM will you use to verify that ChatGPT is more knowledgeable than human experts on a given topic?
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    The thing is, your mistake isn't just distrusting the language model, it's trusting the search engine. No matter what tool you use, the responsibility for ensuring accuracy is ultimately yours. Similar degrees of caution and skepticism must be applied to results from both ML and traditional search engines. They are both insanely powerful tools, and like most insanely powerful tools, the hazards are considerable.
    - cogitoergofutuo 4y ago
      > The thing is, your mistake… This is a weird thing to write to a stranger. I suppose there will be no need to caution people about rudeness or making strange assumptions in the utopian future where humans only talk to chatbots, though.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Not the OP, I'm still hesitant because it infuriates me I have to give them my identity which they will then log every prompt against. You think they aren't building profiles on people? AI moties(more in gods eye reference )is what they are.

Salgat 4y ago

These are explanations that make sense to people who already know how deep learning works but don't really explain much to beginners beyond giving them a grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of what is being discussed (while not actually explaining anything). My advice to folks is, if you actually want to know how this stuff works at some basic level, put in some time learning how basic linear and logistic regression work, including how to train it using back propagation. From there you'll have a solid foundation that gives enough context to understand most deep learning concepts at a high level.

visarga 4y ago
It was intended as a demystification, not a total explanation. There are millions of places explaining with technical details.