3 ms·
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what these systems are doing and how dumb they are. People see a computer doing what they and other people around them d
by tyre 3y ago
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what these systems are doing and how dumb they are.
People see a computer doing what they and other people around them do: natural language going in and out. With other people, we have a theory of mind and broad understanding of how minds work. So it’s understandable that people see ChatGPT and think, “it’s cool that a computer is doing what I’m doing.”
The marketing of these things as Artificial Intelligence is part of the confusion. LLMs are not thinking. They are not saying, “okay now the next thing I’ll do is add a citation. Since I’m doing that, remember to add a warning at the top before showing to the user.” That’s what this writer seems to expect.
The two paths to fixing this: make the tech better or educate people so they have a correct(er) understanding of LLMs.
I don’t think we’re going to get a meaningful subset of humans to take neural networks 101.
- dboreham 3y agoIn other words: the Turing test turns out to be too easy.
- kenjackson 3y agoIt's not that it's too easy, but rather AI models are not people. What do I mean by this? There is (for the purposes of this discussion) just one ChatGPT-4 model. This single model has to be all things to all people. It's not Ted. Or Jessica or Dante. You don't expect Jessica to have a reasonable answer to every question. You accept the fact that if you ask Jessica about public schools, she will go off the rails. It's not indictment on all humans -- it's just Jessica. At some point we might have access to a variety of AI models where some will simply say, "I really only know physics pretty well. I prefer not to give my opinon on other topics". And others that will lie about most everything. But we will learn which are useful for what.
- pdonis 3y agoI would put it that most people who think they are applying the Turing test, actually aren't. Part of correctly applying the Turing test is independently checking the statements the test subject makes against your own knowledge. Part of the "thinking" that the test is testing for is checking beliefs against reality, and the Turing test needs to test for that capability, otherwise it's not being done right.
- simonh 3y agoAlso the test is adversarial, it’s not about throwing softballs to a child. The interrogator should have a good understanding of what constitutes intelligence, the kinds of mental faculties humans have, and ask questions that thoroughly test those faculties.
- Terretta 3y agoWhile I imagine I have a grip on what LLMs are, there's something ... emergent? ... in some behaviors that approach behavior akin to responses from someone or something with a "mental model". That can be confusing to encounter. For instance, asked it to review code interacting with an IoT device API. It unexpectedly warned me a person relying on an app incorporating this library of code should remain careful of a certain health problem since the source for what the IoT device periodically senses can fluctuate between readings, and spikes in that could cause that health problem. I'm still pondering the chain of things that would have to be "thought through" to have that feedback about the code, when — and this is the part that runs against what I thought I knew — this connection, and the implications of only periodic sensing, may be evident to people who stop to think, but most wouldn't think about it, and it's not been written about in any way Google can find. This isn't theory of mind, but it's indistinguishable from the generator relying on something like a mental model.