4 ms·

> it seems like a dangerous crutch than a useful technology Not to sidetrack, but could you expound further? I struggle to reach the blanket conclusion of “not

by yunohn 3y ago

> it seems like a dangerous crutch than a useful technology Not to sidetrack, but could you expound further? I struggle to reach the blanket conclusion of “not useful”. I don’t really see how it’s a crutch, more than any other assistance tool like Google, StackOverflow, code-completion or actual docs. Hallucination is a separate problem, which is solved by using fine-tuned models.

onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
MrVandemar 3y ago
To quote Hofstadter: I frankly am baffled by the allure ... of letting opaque computational systems perform intellectual tasks for them. ...when it comes to using language in a sensitive manner and talking about real-life situations where the distinction between truth and falsity and between genuineness and fakeness is absolutely crucial, to me it makes no sense whatsoever to let the artificial voice of a chatbot, chatting randomly away at dazzling speed, replace the far slower but authentic and reflective voice of a thinking, living human being. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/godel-escher-bach-geb-ai/674589/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/godel-esch...
archargelod 3y ago
> Hallucination is a separate problem, which is solved by using fine-tuned models. They won't solve the main cause of hallucination: prompt has zero connection to generated text other than probability. ChatGPT do not generate answers, it comes up with something that looks like an answer. There is a good chance it is the answer, but you can't guarantee it. I believe this particular problem won't be solved, unless researchers teach machines how to reason. But then we would have greater concerns than hallucinations.
- yunohn 3y ago
  Yes, but pattern matching and probability will solve for the vast majority of usecases. Heck, it already works quite well and offers value. I don’t need 100% truth, because reading multiple docs myself and piecing things together has tons of potential pitfalls too.

by yunohn 3y ago

onetokeoverthe 3y ago

[dead]

MrVandemar 3y ago

To quote Hofstadter: I frankly am baffled by the allure ... of letting opaque computational systems perform intellectual tasks for them. ...when it comes to using language in a sensitive manner and talking about real-life situations where the distinction between truth and falsity and between genuineness and fakeness is absolutely crucial, to me it makes no sense whatsoever to let the artificial voice of a chatbot, chatting randomly away at dazzling speed, replace the far slower but authentic and reflective voice of a thinking, living human being. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/godel-escher-bach-geb-ai/674589/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/godel-esch...

archargelod 3y ago

> Hallucination is a separate problem, which is solved by using fine-tuned models. They won't solve the main cause of hallucination: prompt has zero connection to generated text other than probability. ChatGPT do not generate answers, it comes up with something that looks like an answer. There is a good chance it is the answer, but you can't guarantee it. I believe this particular problem won't be solved, unless researchers teach machines how to reason. But then we would have greater concerns than hallucinations.

yunohn 3y ago
Yes, but pattern matching and probability will solve for the vast majority of usecases. Heck, it already works quite well and offers value. I don’t need 100% truth, because reading multiple docs myself and piecing things together has tons of potential pitfalls too.