3 ms·
I think the author of that title could well do with a refresher course in epistemology and physics, as it is just not possible to do what they suggest. But even
by flanked-evergl 3y ago
I think the author of that title could well do with a refresher course in epistemology and physics, as it is just not possible to do what they suggest. But even more unfortunate is how many people fall for deceptive marketing that really should not even fool the average 16-year-old.
- p-e-w 3y agoIt's weird to see how in such articles (which concern topics that are deeply philosophical by nature), philosophical terms like "facts", "consciousness", "knowledge" etc. are just thrown around as if there was any consensus on what those words even mean. The whole debate is revolving around hot air, because nobody knows whether the other person is talking about the same thing as themselves.
- astrange 3y ago> I think the author of that title could well do with a refresher course in epistemology and physics, as it is just not possible to do what they suggest. If you define "facts" as "things actually stored in the LLM's weights", then research shows it is possible to determine if an output is a "fact" or not. Although looking on arxiv I found a paper saying it doesn't work (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.00175.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.00175.pdf) so maybe not.