4 ms·
Trying to attribute intelligent intent where there is none. ChatGPT just puts tokens in order, following amalgamated examples it has seen. When it screws up, w
by bradley13 3y ago
Trying to attribute intelligent intent where there is none. ChatGPT just puts tokens in order, following amalgamated examples it has seen.
When it screws up, we call it a hallucination. With careful prompting, you can get it to screw up in a way that works.
Color me unimpressed.
- joshuahedlund 3y agoI agree. I don’t think hallucination is the right term. When humans hallucinate, they’re seeing false inputs. When ChatGTP “hallucinates”, it’s giving false outputs. Maybe a better analogy would be a savant with dementia - it knows a lot of things and sounds coherent but it’s inconsistent in keeping track of state and highly variable in the accuracy of its output
- giantrobot 3y agoConfabulation I think is a better description (I didn't come up with it).
- drowsspa 3y agoTrying to attribute intelligent intent when there is none. Human brains just propagate electrical impulses through neuron synapses.
- mrguyorama 3y agoActually no they don't, those neurons are extremely complex machines internally and in their own right. Reducing what they are doing to "propagating electrical impulses" is flat out wrong.
- drowsspa 3y agoTrying to attribute intelligent intent when there is none. Human brains are just an amalgamation of 20 amino acids and other organic molecules that some bunch of DNA produced to copy themselves. Or: Human brains are ultimately just particles following the unavoidable rules of Quantum Mechanics. My point being, we are the result of a bunch of DNA molecules selected to make more copies of itself. Our neurons, whatever their internal structure, still reduce to just chemical and physical processes. Yet, here we are. Reductionism is not the way to dismiss emergent phenomena like intelligence, sentience or consciousness.
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe problem is that the scale of "computing" going on in that particle soup is EXPONENTIALLY more than what even the largest "neural net" projects can hope to achieve. Internal chemical and signalling gradients are probably an important part of brain functioning.
- drowsspa 3y agoThat's not the original point. The original point is it can't possibly be intelligent because it's just trained on predicting tokens.