4 ms·

Wouldn't you be afraid that the AI is wrong? I've seen AI explain some things well, but I've also seen it manufacture completely fake concepts to fill in the bl

Wouldn't you be afraid that the AI is wrong? I've seen AI explain some things well, but I've also seen it manufacture completely fake concepts to fill in the blank. Maybe textbooks aren't perfect either, but at least they're written by accountable parties and read hundreds of times before published.

vishnuharidas 3y ago
Yes, I have experienced this multiple times - for example, ChatGPT and Bard giving totally opposite answers to the same questions. So I learned to take their answers with a pinch of salt and ensure to further research (either Google it, or ask another Conv-AI tool) when I start to smell something wrong. IMO, these Conv-AI tools should indicate to the user when they are hallucinating.
- flax 3y ago
  Like many human habitual bullshitters, they do not even know when they're doing it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andybak 3y ago
  > IMO, these Conv-AI tools should indicate to the user when they are hallucinating. If they could do that, then it would be fairly easy to "not hallucinate". To put it another way the "don't hallucinate" problem and the "warn me if you're hallucinating" problem are in the same difficulty class.
InvertedRhodium 3y ago
No more than I would be afraid that a person I’m having a conversation with could be wrong.
- Karellen 3y ago
  Surely some people are more trustworthy than others? Some people are quite introspective and have pretty good meta-awareness, and hedge when they're not sure about something. While other people are known to just bullshit whenever they don't know something (or when they just feel like it), and don't change this behaviour even when lots of people have pointed it out. How much more would you be worried if you were having a conversation with a known bullshitter?
sdenton4 3y ago
I've used LLMs chat for finding statistics references many times; the important part is often surfacing the missing keyword or jargon needed to find the actual literature on a topic. If there's actual literature, you find it, and if it's a hallucination then you get a sense that the idea is at least very obscure, if not entirely unstudied. Though I have found some very obscure topics by this method...
stinkbutt 3y ago
depends on how far into the weeds you get and the model you're using. gpt4 is pretty reliable at explaining concepts at a high level and its better at it than any textbook or wiki page can be because of its ability to answer follow-up questions in context. its basically the next best thing to a college professor's office hours.
danielvaughn 3y ago
It’s more akin to having a conversation with a well educated person. They aren’t perfect either but it’s good enough to pick up general knowledge. It’s an amazing tool.
brendev 3y ago
Honestly this is a perfectly valid concern. I mostly use it as a jumping off point. Sometimes we don't have the language required to do our own search on a subject. If the LLM can give me a bird's eye view of the subject, then it enables me to go off and do my own research and come with my own conclusions, even if they don't align with what the LLM originally told me. The fact is, there's a ton of misinformation on the Internet. Doesn't matter if you're getting your info from an LLM or not, you should almost always be trying to get your info from multiple sources if possible.
larve 3y ago
I think that in many ways this is a plus. It’s actually really hard outside of actually attending a class with fellow students to find examples of something “wrong” that you can then attempt to crossreference and correct. But when studying with other students, that’s what you do all the time. The friction involved is counterbalanced by the conversational aspect which makes it feel less tedious or even fun. I often like to have the ai: - provide exercises - play the student asking me the e teacher to clarify and answer questions - have it put on a little theater play with different students I was talking about this earlier on mastodon: - https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111471750626975201 https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111471750626975201 - https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111467764783141450 https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111467764783141450 - https://typeshare.co/go-go-golems/posts/ai-driven-self-education-learn-how-to-use-chatgpt-as-the-private-tutor-you-always-wished-you-had https://typeshare.co/go-go-golems/posts/ai-driven-self-educa... I also find it one of the most effective ways of learning, and complement it with the usual book/video learning and (very importantly) writing down the important points learned during the conversation (potentially coming up with Flashcards which can then also be “cosplayed” by gpt), because gpt transcripts are just indigestible.
andybak 3y ago
Yeah but no but... Generally - the areas where GPT starts to become unreliable are usually fairly "off-piste". My gut feeling is that in most standard educational contexts it would probably be fine. Curious to hear specific examples where people have found this not to be the case.
tkgally 3y ago
Yes, you need to be aware of the possibility of confabulation by the AI. But you can minimize that problem by: - Using an LLM that hallucinates less. GPT-4 is more reliable than GPT-3.5, and the just-released Claude 2.1 is reportedly better than its predecessor. In my experience, Bard confabulates too much to be useful for many purposes. - Using the AI to explore relatively general topics. In my tests, GPT-4 is excellent for getting an overview of, say, linguistic theories, the history of ethics, or the differences between quantum and classical physics. The more focused the topic is--how a particular verb conjugates in Romanian, what David Hume said about the death penalty, how gravity affects neutrinos--the more you need to double-check with other sources. - Focusing not on learning facts but on the interactive exploration. One interesting exercise is to discuss counterfactuals: How might human civilization have developed if electricity had not been harnessed? What would have happened if a fifty-meter-diameter asteroid had struck the Rhine Valley in May 1944? There are no right or wrong answers to such questions, but exploring them with the AI can be very rewarding. I agree with the OP: Interaction with LLMs can be a great way to learn, and it will get only better as their reliability improves further and they become more customizable for the individual learner. What I want most now is for them to have a persistent memory of our past conversations. Better multimodal capabilities would also be nice.
hackerlight 3y ago
It's a trade-off. You get handholding and customized learning at the expense of accuracy. Over time, accuracy will improve and the ratio will skew more and more towards favoring AI.
illegalmemory 3y ago
Yes even the original author of tweet acknowledges it https://twitter.com/vishnuhx/status/1727796397150224518 https://twitter.com/vishnuhx/status/1727796397150224518

vishnuharidas 3y ago

Yes, I have experienced this multiple times - for example, ChatGPT and Bard giving totally opposite answers to the same questions. So I learned to take their answers with a pinch of salt and ensure to further research (either Google it, or ask another Conv-AI tool) when I start to smell something wrong. IMO, these Conv-AI tools should indicate to the user when they are hallucinating.

flax 3y ago
Like many human habitual bullshitters, they do not even know when they're doing it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andybak 3y ago
> IMO, these Conv-AI tools should indicate to the user when they are hallucinating. If they could do that, then it would be fairly easy to "not hallucinate". To put it another way the "don't hallucinate" problem and the "warn me if you're hallucinating" problem are in the same difficulty class.

InvertedRhodium 3y ago

No more than I would be afraid that a person I’m having a conversation with could be wrong.

Karellen 3y ago
Surely some people are more trustworthy than others? Some people are quite introspective and have pretty good meta-awareness, and hedge when they're not sure about something. While other people are known to just bullshit whenever they don't know something (or when they just feel like it), and don't change this behaviour even when lots of people have pointed it out. How much more would you be worried if you were having a conversation with a known bullshitter?

sdenton4 3y ago

I've used LLMs chat for finding statistics references many times; the important part is often surfacing the missing keyword or jargon needed to find the actual literature on a topic. If there's actual literature, you find it, and if it's a hallucination then you get a sense that the idea is at least very obscure, if not entirely unstudied. Though I have found some very obscure topics by this method...

stinkbutt 3y ago

depends on how far into the weeds you get and the model you're using. gpt4 is pretty reliable at explaining concepts at a high level and its better at it than any textbook or wiki page can be because of its ability to answer follow-up questions in context. its basically the next best thing to a college professor's office hours.

danielvaughn 3y ago

It’s more akin to having a conversation with a well educated person. They aren’t perfect either but it’s good enough to pick up general knowledge. It’s an amazing tool.

brendev 3y ago

Honestly this is a perfectly valid concern. I mostly use it as a jumping off point. Sometimes we don't have the language required to do our own search on a subject. If the LLM can give me a bird's eye view of the subject, then it enables me to go off and do my own research and come with my own conclusions, even if they don't align with what the LLM originally told me. The fact is, there's a ton of misinformation on the Internet. Doesn't matter if you're getting your info from an LLM or not, you should almost always be trying to get your info from multiple sources if possible.

larve 3y ago

I think that in many ways this is a plus. It’s actually really hard outside of actually attending a class with fellow students to find examples of something “wrong” that you can then attempt to crossreference and correct. But when studying with other students, that’s what you do all the time. The friction involved is counterbalanced by the conversational aspect which makes it feel less tedious or even fun. I often like to have the ai: - provide exercises - play the student asking me the e teacher to clarify and answer questions - have it put on a little theater play with different students I was talking about this earlier on mastodon: - https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111471750626975201 https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111471750626975201 - https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111467764783141450 https://hachyderm.io/@mnl/111467764783141450 - https://typeshare.co/go-go-golems/posts/ai-driven-self-education-learn-how-to-use-chatgpt-as-the-private-tutor-you-always-wished-you-had https://typeshare.co/go-go-golems/posts/ai-driven-self-educa... I also find it one of the most effective ways of learning, and complement it with the usual book/video learning and (very importantly) writing down the important points learned during the conversation (potentially coming up with Flashcards which can then also be “cosplayed” by gpt), because gpt transcripts are just indigestible.

andybak 3y ago

Yeah but no but... Generally - the areas where GPT starts to become unreliable are usually fairly "off-piste". My gut feeling is that in most standard educational contexts it would probably be fine. Curious to hear specific examples where people have found this not to be the case.

tkgally 3y ago

Yes, you need to be aware of the possibility of confabulation by the AI. But you can minimize that problem by: - Using an LLM that hallucinates less. GPT-4 is more reliable than GPT-3.5, and the just-released Claude 2.1 is reportedly better than its predecessor. In my experience, Bard confabulates too much to be useful for many purposes. - Using the AI to explore relatively general topics. In my tests, GPT-4 is excellent for getting an overview of, say, linguistic theories, the history of ethics, or the differences between quantum and classical physics. The more focused the topic is--how a particular verb conjugates in Romanian, what David Hume said about the death penalty, how gravity affects neutrinos--the more you need to double-check with other sources. - Focusing not on learning facts but on the interactive exploration. One interesting exercise is to discuss counterfactuals: How might human civilization have developed if electricity had not been harnessed? What would have happened if a fifty-meter-diameter asteroid had struck the Rhine Valley in May 1944? There are no right or wrong answers to such questions, but exploring them with the AI can be very rewarding. I agree with the OP: Interaction with LLMs can be a great way to learn, and it will get only better as their reliability improves further and they become more customizable for the individual learner. What I want most now is for them to have a persistent memory of our past conversations. Better multimodal capabilities would also be nice.

hackerlight 3y ago

It's a trade-off. You get handholding and customized learning at the expense of accuracy. Over time, accuracy will improve and the ratio will skew more and more towards favoring AI.

illegalmemory 3y ago

Yes even the original author of tweet acknowledges it https://twitter.com/vishnuhx/status/1727796397150224518 https://twitter.com/vishnuhx/status/1727796397150224518