4 ms·
Would you use a dictionary if it gave a plausible but wrong answer 5% of the time?
by gnopgnip 3y ago
Would you use a dictionary if it gave a plausible but wrong answer 5% of the time?
- 15457345234 3y agoMany people will say yes to this question until you give them a very obviously hazardous example of what can result.
- andybak 3y agoI don't recall using a dictionary in a safety-critical context recently but I'm keen to hear some examples.
- 15457345234 3y agoBelieving that 'inflammable' means 'not flammable' (a fairly common mistake) and having a dictionary (incorrectly) confirm that is the first one that comes to mind.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoIt's already a common mistake in this world of human written dictionaries.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 15457345234 3y agoCan you elaborate?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoJust that I wouldn't worry about the confusion created by a potentially hallucinated definition when having had centuries of dictionaries that carried the correct definition fail to avoid confusion in the first place. If the LLM does or doesn't give the right definition we'll still be confused because the word is inherently confusing.
- 15457345234 3y agoI think in the example I gave the example problem that may occur from trusting the definition is less 'confusion' and more 'being on fire.'
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhat I mean is that many fires have already been caused by this word despite the best efforts of dictionary authors.
- jstummbillig 3y agoThat depends on the alternative, no? If we could conjure a human legislator that is wrong only 20% of the time I would be pleasantly shocked.
- 6510 3y agoThis seems like an excellent argument for robot overlords - at least eventually.