3 ms·

That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only ac

• flappyeagle 3y ago
  No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?
  • chx 3y ago
    Instead of standing up a strawman argument: why don't you trust it? How does that extend to other areas where you do ?
• danielbln 3y ago
  If you use an LLM as a mere fact dispenser, then yes, they're quite susceptible to hallucinations. That said, there are search enabled LLMs, there is RAG to inject grounding truth into the LLMs context, there are LLMs that use their own code execution environments to validate code and output, all of which severely reduce hallucinations. Also, I would not rely on a single (online) source for matters of life and death (medicine, finding non-poisnonous mushrooms, etc.) so why would LLM output be any different? LLMs are not knowledge bases by themselves, they are text/language transformers, treat them as such or augment them with additional knowledge. Or don't, if you think millions of people are gaslighting you and LLMs are just a parlor trick, then I don't know what to tell you.
• rashkov 3y ago
  > It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother In the case of code or other computer knowledge, it’s easy enough to check that it works. Your same criticisms also apply to stack overflow, or any webpage you find through a search engine. Why bother when the content might be wrong or made up? What makes you trust those websites more than GPT?
• rizky05 3y ago
  [dead]