4 ms·

This is a fairly perpetual discussion, but I'll go for another round: I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for gettin

This is a fairly perpetual discussion, but I'll go for another round: I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want. I'd never use chatGPT for anything that's even remotely obscure, controversial, or niche. But through all my double-checking, I've had phenomenal success rate in getting useful, readable, valid responses to well-covered / documented topics such as introductory french, introductory music theory, well-covered & non-controversial history and science. I'd love to see the example you experienced; if I ask chatGPT "tell me about Toronto, Canada", my expectation would be to get high accuracy. If I asked it "Was Hum, Croatia, part of the Istrian liberation movement in the seventies", I'd have far less confidence - it's a leading question, on a less covered topic, introducing inaccuracies in the prompt. My point is - for a 3 hour drive to cottage, I'm OK with something that's only 95% accurate on easy topics! I'd get no better from my spouse or best friend if they made it on the same drive :). My life will not depend on it, I'll have an educationally good time and miles will pass faster :). (also, these conversations always seem to end in suffocatingly self-righteous "I don't know how others can live in this post-fact free world of ignorance", but that has a LOT of assumptions and, ironically, non-factual bias in it as well)

doug_durham 3y ago
Exactly this! This is my experience also. Your point about "well covered & non-controversial" is spot on. I know not to expect great results when asking about topics that have very little coverage. To be honest I wouldn't expect to go to an arbitrary human and get solid answers on a little covered topic, unless that person just happened to be topic expert. There is so much value in having the basics to intermediate levels of topics covered in a reliable way. That's where most of commercial activity occurs.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  I think a key difference is that humans very rarely sound convincing talking about subjects they have no clue about. I've seen the hallucination rate of LLMs improve significantly, if you stick to well covered topics they probably do quite well. The issue is they often have no tells when making things up.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want. I don't think it's quite the same. With search results, aka web sites, you can compare between them and get a "majority opinion" if you have doubts - it doesn't guarantee correctness but it does improve the odds. Some sites are also more reputable and reliable than others - e.g. if the information is from Reuters, a university's courseware, official government agencies, ... etc. it's probably correct. With LLMs you get one answer and that's it - although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ...
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ... Yes and no. If the LLM is repeating the same thing on multiple drafts then it's very unlikely to be a hallucination. It's when multiple generations are all saying different things that you need to take notice. LLMs hallucinate yes but getting the same hallucination multiple times is incredibly rare.
  - PoignardAzur 3y ago
    Wait, is that true? I feel like that claim needs a lot of disclaimers.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18248 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18248 "In particular, we find that LMs often hallucinate differing authors of hallucinated references when queried in independent sessions, while consistently identify authors of real references. This suggests that the hallucination may be more a generation issue than inherent to current training techniques or representation." https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896 "SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if a LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another."

doug_durham 3y ago

Exactly this! This is my experience also. Your point about "well covered & non-controversial" is spot on. I know not to expect great results when asking about topics that have very little coverage. To be honest I wouldn't expect to go to an arbitrary human and get solid answers on a little covered topic, unless that person just happened to be topic expert. There is so much value in having the basics to intermediate levels of topics covered in a reliable way. That's where most of commercial activity occurs.

jabradoodle 3y ago
I think a key difference is that humans very rarely sound convincing talking about subjects they have no clue about. I've seen the hallucination rate of LLMs improve significantly, if you stick to well covered topics they probably do quite well. The issue is they often have no tells when making things up.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

> I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want. I don't think it's quite the same. With search results, aka web sites, you can compare between them and get a "majority opinion" if you have doubts - it doesn't guarantee correctness but it does improve the odds. Some sites are also more reputable and reliable than others - e.g. if the information is from Reuters, a university's courseware, official government agencies, ... etc. it's probably correct. With LLMs you get one answer and that's it - although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ...

famouswaffles 3y ago
>although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ... Yes and no. If the LLM is repeating the same thing on multiple drafts then it's very unlikely to be a hallucination. It's when multiple generations are all saying different things that you need to take notice. LLMs hallucinate yes but getting the same hallucination multiple times is incredibly rare.
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  Wait, is that true? I feel like that claim needs a lot of disclaimers.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18248 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18248 "In particular, we find that LMs often hallucinate differing authors of hallucinated references when queried in independent sessions, while consistently identify authors of real references. This suggests that the hallucination may be more a generation issue than inherent to current training techniques or representation." https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896 "SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if a LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another."