6 ms·

I think it confuses things immensely to anthropomorphize large language models. LLMs don't lie or tell the truth they just spit out text that is in alignment wi

I think it confuses things immensely to anthropomorphize large language models. LLMs don't lie or tell the truth they just spit out text that is in alignment with the training model. Don't give them agency they don't have.

scarface_74 3y ago
Yes and when you’re using “serverless” services there are actually servers running somewhere. At this point, it’s not insightful for someone to mention either on HN.
- gwright 3y ago
  If we are going to expand the discussion to general inaccuracy in human communication we are going to need a much larger thread. I do agree with you that "serverless" is a misnomer and not a useful technical term. I'm guessing the marketing team wasn't fond of "dynamically provisioned and auto-scaled pool of virtual machine instance-based services".
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So then should we also get rid of terms like “bugs in code”, “viruses” as it relates to computers, etc? In a technical forum, most people have the domain specific knowledge and the “well actually” is not actually needed.
homami 3y ago
I don't lie either. I just spit out words that is in alignment with my mental model for optimizing my future.
- what-wait 3y ago
  Quoting someone on the internet, saying: 'They are just liquidating their assets.' Their lies are simple: they rule us. (-;
- svaha1728 3y ago
  “First you destroy those who create values. Then you destroy those who know what the values are… But real barbarism begins when no one can any longer judge or know that what one does is barbaric.” — Ryszard Kapuściński
- gwright 3y ago
  Maybe you are a large language model?
- hdior 3y ago
  Human social norms; definitions of optimizing for self, do not have to be maintained though; see the decline in religion. Human society is not fractal; we die off, new social value stores come about; optimize for self could be defined as “not build environment destroying technology.” A synthetic machine kept running but never allowed new inputs will just exist in long term belief in its old bullshit
- ars 3y ago
  Are you aware that what you are saying is not true? If you are aware then it's a "Lie". If you are not aware then it's a "Mistake". LLM's are not aware, so saying "lie" is not correct.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
barbariangrunge 3y ago
This is to fight back against the term "hallucinate" that everyone on here is using
- gwright 3y ago
  That is an interesting point. I'm not sure why, but "hallucinate" doesn't bother me as much as "lie". Maybe it is because of all the ancillary baggage that "lie" has related to our current culture wars (lies, misinformation, disinformation, gaslighting, etc.) I just asked (another anthropomorphic verb) ChatGPT for a better word and it came up with "fabricate". > The term "fabricate" could be used to describe AI's tendency to generate fictitious information. This term has less anthropomorphic connotations than "hallucinate" and directly refers to the creation or construction of something, which could be a suitable representation for what an AI system does when it generates false data. Other alternatives could be "synthesize" or "generate," depending on the specific context.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    "Fabricate" has the same problem as "lie" and "hallucinate". All of those terms imply a cognition that isn't actually happening. I think the best way to refer to these things is the more accurate "error". The LLM isn't lying, it's in error.
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      It doesn't. Hallucination in this context means 'an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion'. There's one side of the current zeitgeist that over-anthropomorphizes these models. But there's another side that seems to be terrified that LLMs could be anything resembling intelligent Both sides are pretty emotion over facts though. A lot of their "human-like" behavior is emergent from things that don't work the same way in a humans... but we also don't understand cognition enough to then say there's no overlap between what LLMs are doing and what some part of our own thought process is like. If anything we have more studies that imply the opposite going back decades: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926641097000335 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09266...
circuit10 3y ago
It’s a reasonable way to describe it. LLMs are designed to talk like humans so using human terms to describe them works quite well
- Barrin92 3y ago
  it's also not a great term for the same behavior in humans. There's the often quoted distinction by Harry Frankfurt about lying, which is knowing the truth but intentionally subverting or hiding it, and bullshitting, which is talking without any regard to truth or falsehood whatsoever. It's a distinction worth making as people are much better at spotting lies than they are at spotting bullshit. The bullshitter may even be accidentally correct. AI models in particular will make up things in random places where nobody is sceptical or has their guard up because they see no reason for a lie, but bullshitters don't need one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Lying is intentional. A statement which is untrue is not by itself a lie, the thing which makes it a lie is the intention of the person. AIs do not have intentions, the only thing in an AI is a statistical model of how likely words appear in certain contexts. "Hallucinating" is a much better term, even though it still pretends a staristical model is akin to a human.
  - circuit10 3y ago
    I guess that’s true. LLMs don’t really have intentions but there are some AIs that take actions to achieve a goal that can probably be described as having intentions
verisimi 3y ago
Absolutely. The lie is in providing the false framework, or a framework with fakery embedded. If the lie is accepted at the framework level, individuals will believe themselves to be saying the truth, unaware that they have already swallowed the larger falsity.

scarface_74 3y ago

Yes and when you’re using “serverless” services there are actually servers running somewhere. At this point, it’s not insightful for someone to mention either on HN.

gwright 3y ago
If we are going to expand the discussion to general inaccuracy in human communication we are going to need a much larger thread. I do agree with you that "serverless" is a misnomer and not a useful technical term. I'm guessing the marketing team wasn't fond of "dynamically provisioned and auto-scaled pool of virtual machine instance-based services".
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So then should we also get rid of terms like “bugs in code”, “viruses” as it relates to computers, etc? In a technical forum, most people have the domain specific knowledge and the “well actually” is not actually needed.

homami 3y ago

I don't lie either. I just spit out words that is in alignment with my mental model for optimizing my future.

what-wait 3y ago
Quoting someone on the internet, saying: 'They are just liquidating their assets.' Their lies are simple: they rule us. (-;
svaha1728 3y ago
“First you destroy those who create values. Then you destroy those who know what the values are… But real barbarism begins when no one can any longer judge or know that what one does is barbaric.” — Ryszard Kapuściński
gwright 3y ago
Maybe you are a large language model?
hdior 3y ago
Human social norms; definitions of optimizing for self, do not have to be maintained though; see the decline in religion. Human society is not fractal; we die off, new social value stores come about; optimize for self could be defined as “not build environment destroying technology.” A synthetic machine kept running but never allowed new inputs will just exist in long term belief in its old bullshit
ars 3y ago
Are you aware that what you are saying is not true? If you are aware then it's a "Lie". If you are not aware then it's a "Mistake". LLM's are not aware, so saying "lie" is not correct.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

barbariangrunge 3y ago

This is to fight back against the term "hallucinate" that everyone on here is using

gwright 3y ago
That is an interesting point. I'm not sure why, but "hallucinate" doesn't bother me as much as "lie". Maybe it is because of all the ancillary baggage that "lie" has related to our current culture wars (lies, misinformation, disinformation, gaslighting, etc.) I just asked (another anthropomorphic verb) ChatGPT for a better word and it came up with "fabricate". > The term "fabricate" could be used to describe AI's tendency to generate fictitious information. This term has less anthropomorphic connotations than "hallucinate" and directly refers to the creation or construction of something, which could be a suitable representation for what an AI system does when it generates false data. Other alternatives could be "synthesize" or "generate," depending on the specific context.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  "Fabricate" has the same problem as "lie" and "hallucinate". All of those terms imply a cognition that isn't actually happening. I think the best way to refer to these things is the more accurate "error". The LLM isn't lying, it's in error.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    It doesn't. Hallucination in this context means 'an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion'. There's one side of the current zeitgeist that over-anthropomorphizes these models. But there's another side that seems to be terrified that LLMs could be anything resembling intelligent Both sides are pretty emotion over facts though. A lot of their "human-like" behavior is emergent from things that don't work the same way in a humans... but we also don't understand cognition enough to then say there's no overlap between what LLMs are doing and what some part of our own thought process is like. If anything we have more studies that imply the opposite going back decades: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926641097000335 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09266...

circuit10 3y ago

It’s a reasonable way to describe it. LLMs are designed to talk like humans so using human terms to describe them works quite well

Barrin92 3y ago
it's also not a great term for the same behavior in humans. There's the often quoted distinction by Harry Frankfurt about lying, which is knowing the truth but intentionally subverting or hiding it, and bullshitting, which is talking without any regard to truth or falsehood whatsoever. It's a distinction worth making as people are much better at spotting lies than they are at spotting bullshit. The bullshitter may even be accidentally correct. AI models in particular will make up things in random places where nobody is sceptical or has their guard up because they see no reason for a lie, but bullshitters don't need one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
constantcrying 3y ago
Lying is intentional. A statement which is untrue is not by itself a lie, the thing which makes it a lie is the intention of the person. AIs do not have intentions, the only thing in an AI is a statistical model of how likely words appear in certain contexts. "Hallucinating" is a much better term, even though it still pretends a staristical model is akin to a human.
- circuit10 3y ago
  I guess that’s true. LLMs don’t really have intentions but there are some AIs that take actions to achieve a goal that can probably be described as having intentions

verisimi 3y ago

Absolutely. The lie is in providing the false framework, or a framework with fakery embedded. If the lie is accepted at the framework level, individuals will believe themselves to be saying the truth, unaware that they have already swallowed the larger falsity.