9 ms·
> All these criticisms of hallucinations are missing the point. Not if people need to be reminded that, as you say, LLMs are not designed to give reliable answ
by pdonis 3y ago
> All these criticisms of hallucinations are missing the point.
Not if people need to be reminded that, as you say, LLMs are not designed to give reliable answers. Many, many people appear to believe that they are, since they rely on the answers in all kinds of contexts. For example, in past HN threads on LLMs, I have seen people say that they rely on LLM-generated code.
- happytiger 3y agoIn the land of the blind the one eyed man is king? ;)
- gaganyaan 3y agoI rely on code written by AI and verified by me, particularly when the code is finicky or tedious but verification is simple. LLMs are more reliable than you're trying to assert, but blindly copy/pasting AI-generated code is a recipe for pain, just the same as blindly copy/pasting human-generated code from SO.
- pdonis 3y ago> I rely on code written by AI and verified by me The "verified by me" part is crucial, though, yes? I'm talking about people, whom I have seen posting here on HN in other threads on this topic, who leave out the "verify" step and just rely on the LLM code as it comes.
- gaganyaan 3y agoYes, verification (or trust) is crucial. Those posts may have elided the verification process they did, though. Unless we look at a specific post it'd be hard to discuss it. To be more specific, I trust GPT-4 to handle tasks like "Rewrite this C++ struct into Rust". I still verify that it's correct as part of a normal code review process, but I trust GPT-4 in that scenario at least as much as I would a junior dev.