4 ms·
I meant the sentence I quoted, or the part > [...] especially on Wikipedia. Of course, transformer models have the same issues I agree that one should be crit
by moritzwarhier 3y ago
I meant the sentence I quoted, or the part
> [...] especially on Wikipedia. Of course, transformer models have the same issues
I agree that one should be critical of all sources, including Wikipedia. I don't agree that GPT is an information source comparable to Wikipedia or scientific studies. Both can be wrong, biased or incorrect though.
In other words, I would never consider the usage of any LLM worth to cross-check information found elsewhere, as opposed to e.g. Wikipedia.
Which does not mean that I consider the info compiled on Wikipedia always as trsutworthy. Then again, I wouldn't use an LLM to cross-check Wikipedia.
They're not equals.
Sorry if I misunderstood anything in your comment.
- manmal 3y agoUsing Wikipedia to cross-check can be dangerous since it often is the source of the content you‘re trying to verify.
- moritzwarhier 3y agoThis is surely true and can be a danger in many cases. Still, Wikipedia is curated by humans and in most cases I would argue that articles improve over time, errors get corrected etc. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is a good primary source, I still think it is very suitable as a point of entry if you want to cross-check information from other sources. A user-editable encyclopedia is not perfect, but it is not comparable to automatically generated text that has no regard for correctness, that only tries to fit its training data and prompt. For example, I wouldn't trust GPT when asking for the height of some building in my city. I would consider it likely though that it confidently gives ke a wrong number. Without all the RLHF training to refuse "best guess" answers, situation would be even more bleak.