3 ms·
> The LLM model doesn't know true/false, fact or fiction. That should be immaterial, given it is asked simply to retrieve a fact. > In this case, the qualific
by chrisjj 3y ago
> The LLM model doesn't know true/false, fact or fiction.
That should be immaterial, given it is asked simply to retrieve a fact.
> In this case, the qualification is accurately reflecting its training.
What training causes it to evade the question by adopting "reputable"?
- JohnFen 3y ago> That should be immaterial, given it is asked simply to retrieve a fact. How is the LLM supposed to recognize what a fact is?
- chrisjj 3y agoIt doesn't need to. It needs simply to trawl its data for an answer to the direct question. Which should not be too hard ... given even Google web search can do it: https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+said+cigarettes+were+no+more+addictive+than+coffee%2C+tea+or+Twinkies https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+said+cigarettes+were+no+... My point is, the outcome shouldn't be affected by the truth/falsehood of the statement in question ... barring hamfisted “teach LLMs to stick to the truth”.
- cratermoon 3y ago> the outcome shouldn't be affected by the truth/falsehood of the statement in question Epistemology would beg to differ. See, for example, "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/analys/23.6.121 https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-lookup/doi/10.1093...
- chrisjj 3y agoI don't think it would. Else we'd be able to ask 1==1? but not 1==2? .
- cratermoon 3y agoLLMs are notoriously failures at math and symbolic manipulation in general. The model only statistically predicts the token 1==1 is true more often in its corpus and thus has more weight than 1==2. We can say mathematics makes 1==1 true, but LLMs don't know the logic: all they have are signs (tokens) saying 1==1 is true, which happens to be correct, but the existence of the sign (tokens) itself is not proof.