3 ms·

Uh, no. Generative AI does not have a standard of truth. It generates text according to the probabilities given what it learned from its data set. There is no s

Uh, no. Generative AI does not have a standard of truth. It generates text according to the probabilities given what it learned from its data set. There is no systematic modelling of a world that it can test its assertions against. What are called hallucinations are a fundamental property of the approach. The hallucinations are probable -- just not true. The model has succeeded but the assertions are false. This has to be understood or the models will mess stuff up. A lot of checking is required. Humans always assemble information according to a standard of truth. It is a big part of how humans learn. No method is perfect but the human method results in fewer routine hallucinations.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pixl97 3y ago
A standard of truth is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Myself I would say we assemble information based on the limitations of the body we exist in. For example gravity is important to us because if we disobey its laws we may very well die. Embodiment and multi modal AI will likely provide such filters or limits to AI in which it can derive truth.
ryanklee 3y ago
> the human method results in fewer routine hallucinations. I'd love you to produce data to back this up. My guess is that you are wrong, on the basis of how often I discover that I'm full of shit and how often I discover other people are full of shit. Humans are built for being wrong just as much as being right. We wouldn't have such complicated institutions and social structures built around controlling for those symmetric capacities if it weren't the case. Even then, we find ourselves surrounded and overcome by falsehoods of our own design.
- wavemode 3y ago
  You could probably just look up data on mental illness and/or pathological lying? Most people will say "I don't really know the details of that" rather than write you an essay of seemingly plausible but completely made up nonsense. Not all people, sure, but most.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    The kind of incorrect information I am referencing is not pathological, but the type that is generated by cognitive bias and woven into the functional fabric of everyday life. It is pervasive and most people don't notice it (even when aware of specific bias types).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pixl97 3y ago

A standard of truth is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Myself I would say we assemble information based on the limitations of the body we exist in. For example gravity is important to us because if we disobey its laws we may very well die. Embodiment and multi modal AI will likely provide such filters or limits to AI in which it can derive truth.

ryanklee 3y ago

> the human method results in fewer routine hallucinations. I'd love you to produce data to back this up. My guess is that you are wrong, on the basis of how often I discover that I'm full of shit and how often I discover other people are full of shit. Humans are built for being wrong just as much as being right. We wouldn't have such complicated institutions and social structures built around controlling for those symmetric capacities if it weren't the case. Even then, we find ourselves surrounded and overcome by falsehoods of our own design.

wavemode 3y ago
You could probably just look up data on mental illness and/or pathological lying? Most people will say "I don't really know the details of that" rather than write you an essay of seemingly plausible but completely made up nonsense. Not all people, sure, but most.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  The kind of incorrect information I am referencing is not pathological, but the type that is generated by cognitive bias and woven into the functional fabric of everyday life. It is pervasive and most people don't notice it (even when aware of specific bias types).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]