4 ms·

> The number of non-tech ppl I've heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking. The problem is that a lot of those people will take ChatGPT outp

> The number of non-tech ppl I've heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking. The problem is that a lot of those people will take ChatGPT output at face value. They are wholly unaware that of its inaccuracies or that it hallucinates. I've seen it too many times in the relatively short amount of time that ChatGPT has been around.

bongodongobob 3y ago
So what? People do this with Facebook news too. That's a people problem, not an LLM problem.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  If we rewind a little bit to the mid to late 2010s, filter bubbles, recommendation systems and unreliable news being spread on social media was a big problem. It was a simpler time, but we never really solved the problem. Point is, I don’t see the existence of other problems as an excuse for LLM hallucination, and writing it off as a “people problem” really undersells how hard it is to solve people problems.
- dylan604 3y ago
  People on social media are absolutely 100% posting things deliberately to fuck with people. They are actively seeking to confuse people, cause chaos, divisiveness, and other ill intended purposes. Unless you're saying that the LLM developers are actively doing the same thing, I don't think comparing what people find on the socials vs getting back as a response from a chatBot is a logical comparison at all
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    How is that any different from what these AI chatbots are doing? They make stuff up that they predict will be rewarded highly by humans who look at it. This is exactly what leads to truisms like "rubber duckies are made of a material that floats over water" - which looks like it should be correct, even though it's wrong. It really is no different from Facebook memes that are devised to get a rise out of people and be widely shared.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Because we shouldn't be striving to make mediocrity. We should be striving to build better. Unless the devs of the bots are wanting to have a bot built on trying to deceive people, I just don't see the purpose of this. If we can "train" a bot and fine tune it, we should be fine tuning truth and telling it what absolutely is bullshit. To avoid the darker topics to keep the conversation on the rails, if there were a misinformation campaign that was trying to state that the Earth's sky is red, then the fine tuning should be able to inform that this is clearly fake so when quoting this it should be stated as incorrect information that is out there. This kind of development should be how we can clean up the fake, but nope, we're seemingly quite happy at accepting it. At least that's how your question comes off to me.
      - zozbot234 3y ago
        Sure, but current AI bots are just following the human feedback they get. If the feedback is naïve enough to score the factoid about rubber duckys as correct, guess what, that's the kind of thing these AI's will target. You can try to address this by prompting them with requests like "do you think this answer is correct and ethical? Think through this step by step" ('reinforcement learning from AI feedback') but that's very ad hoc and uncertain - ultimately, the humans in the loop call the shots.
        dylan604 3y ago
        At the end of the day, if there is no definitive answer to a question, it should respond in such a manner. "While there are compelling reasons to think A or B, neither A nor B have been verified. They are just the leading theories." That would be a much better answer than "Option A is the answer even if some people think B is." when A is just as unproven as B, but because it answers so definitively, people think it is the right answer. So the labels thing is something that obviously will never work. But the system has all of the information it needs to know if the question is definitively answerable. If it is not, do not phrase the response definitively. At this point, I'd be happy if it responded to "Is 1+1 = 2?" with a wish washy answer like, "Most people would agree that 1+1 = 2", and if it wanted to say "in base 10, that is the correct answer. however, in base 2, the 1+1 = 10" would also be acceptable. Fake it till you make it is not the solution here.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    There are far more people who post obviously wrong, confusing and dangerous things online with total conviction. There are people who seriously believe Earth is flat, for example.
- lm28469 3y ago
  Literally everything is a "people problem" You can kill people with a fork, it doesn't mean you should legally be allowed to own a nuclear bomb "because it's just the same". The problem always come from scale and accessibility
umvi 3y ago
So you're saying we need a Ministry of Truth to protect people from themselves? This is the same argument used to suppress "harmful" speech on any medium.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I've gotten to the point where I want "advertisment" stamped on anything that is, and I'm getting to the point I want "fiction" stamped on anything that is. I have no problem with fiction existing. It can be quite fun. People trying to pass fiction as fact is a problem though. Trying to force a "fact" stamp would be problematic though, so I'd rather label everything else. How to enforce it is the real sticky wicket though, so it's only something best discussed at places like this or while sitting around chatting while consuming
  - umvi 3y ago
    And who gets to control the "fiction" stamp? Especially for hot button topics like covid (back in 2020)? Should asking an LLM about lab leak theory be auto-stamped with "fiction" since it's not proven? But then what if it's proven later?

bongodongobob 3y ago

So what? People do this with Facebook news too. That's a people problem, not an LLM problem.

janalsncm 3y ago
If we rewind a little bit to the mid to late 2010s, filter bubbles, recommendation systems and unreliable news being spread on social media was a big problem. It was a simpler time, but we never really solved the problem. Point is, I don’t see the existence of other problems as an excuse for LLM hallucination, and writing it off as a “people problem” really undersells how hard it is to solve people problems.
dylan604 3y ago
People on social media are absolutely 100% posting things deliberately to fuck with people. They are actively seeking to confuse people, cause chaos, divisiveness, and other ill intended purposes. Unless you're saying that the LLM developers are actively doing the same thing, I don't think comparing what people find on the socials vs getting back as a response from a chatBot is a logical comparison at all
- zozbot234 3y ago
  How is that any different from what these AI chatbots are doing? They make stuff up that they predict will be rewarded highly by humans who look at it. This is exactly what leads to truisms like "rubber duckies are made of a material that floats over water" - which looks like it should be correct, even though it's wrong. It really is no different from Facebook memes that are devised to get a rise out of people and be widely shared.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Because we shouldn't be striving to make mediocrity. We should be striving to build better. Unless the devs of the bots are wanting to have a bot built on trying to deceive people, I just don't see the purpose of this. If we can "train" a bot and fine tune it, we should be fine tuning truth and telling it what absolutely is bullshit. To avoid the darker topics to keep the conversation on the rails, if there were a misinformation campaign that was trying to state that the Earth's sky is red, then the fine tuning should be able to inform that this is clearly fake so when quoting this it should be stated as incorrect information that is out there. This kind of development should be how we can clean up the fake, but nope, we're seemingly quite happy at accepting it. At least that's how your question comes off to me.
    - zozbot234 3y ago
      Sure, but current AI bots are just following the human feedback they get. If the feedback is naïve enough to score the factoid about rubber duckys as correct, guess what, that's the kind of thing these AI's will target. You can try to address this by prompting them with requests like "do you think this answer is correct and ethical? Think through this step by step" ('reinforcement learning from AI feedback') but that's very ad hoc and uncertain - ultimately, the humans in the loop call the shots.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        At the end of the day, if there is no definitive answer to a question, it should respond in such a manner. "While there are compelling reasons to think A or B, neither A nor B have been verified. They are just the leading theories." That would be a much better answer than "Option A is the answer even if some people think B is." when A is just as unproven as B, but because it answers so definitively, people think it is the right answer. So the labels thing is something that obviously will never work. But the system has all of the information it needs to know if the question is definitively answerable. If it is not, do not phrase the response definitively. At this point, I'd be happy if it responded to "Is 1+1 = 2?" with a wish washy answer like, "Most people would agree that 1+1 = 2", and if it wanted to say "in base 10, that is the correct answer. however, in base 2, the 1+1 = 10" would also be acceptable. Fake it till you make it is not the solution here.
- p1esk 3y ago
  There are far more people who post obviously wrong, confusing and dangerous things online with total conviction. There are people who seriously believe Earth is flat, for example.
lm28469 3y ago
Literally everything is a "people problem" You can kill people with a fork, it doesn't mean you should legally be allowed to own a nuclear bomb "because it's just the same". The problem always come from scale and accessibility

umvi 3y ago

So you're saying we need a Ministry of Truth to protect people from themselves? This is the same argument used to suppress "harmful" speech on any medium.

dylan604 3y ago
I've gotten to the point where I want "advertisment" stamped on anything that is, and I'm getting to the point I want "fiction" stamped on anything that is. I have no problem with fiction existing. It can be quite fun. People trying to pass fiction as fact is a problem though. Trying to force a "fact" stamp would be problematic though, so I'd rather label everything else. How to enforce it is the real sticky wicket though, so it's only something best discussed at places like this or while sitting around chatting while consuming
- umvi 3y ago
  And who gets to control the "fiction" stamp? Especially for hot button topics like covid (back in 2020)? Should asking an LLM about lab leak theory be auto-stamped with "fiction" since it's not proven? But then what if it's proven later?