7 ms·

> A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless if it can't directly quote its sources. That's a strong and baseless st

by preciz 3y ago

> A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless if it can't directly quote its sources. That's a strong and baseless statement.

njgingrich 3y ago
Well sure, it's easy to make a statement look bad if you only include half of it.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  The statement is equally hyperbolic both as quoted and in the original context. LLMs often can't quote sources, and those models are nevertheless useful to lots of people. Makes it hard for me to take the rest of the comment seriously.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    A LLM that could quote sources would be even more useful, and in a world where both were available there’d be no reason to use the plagiarizing one.
    - Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
      that LLM is https://perplexity.ai https://perplexity.ai
- ryanklee 3y ago
  That was the whole statement. It doesn't have qualifiers left out
  - njgingrich 3y ago
    The comment I replied to was updated to include the second half, it was originally just quoting > A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      The additional context doesn't do any work.
js8 3y ago
I, for one, agree with the original statement. I think the hallmark of enlightenment (for example, in the scientific method) is that we are able to externalize the expert knowledge, that is, experts are usually required to provide reasoning behind their claims, and not just judgements. This is because we learned that experts cannot be 100% trusted, only if we can verify what they say we can somewhat reach what is truth (although expertise still provides a convenient shortcut). So not demanding this (and more) from an AI (an artificial expert) is a regression. AI should be capable of wholly explaining its reasoning, if we are to consider its statements to be taken seriously. It is understandable that humans have only limited capability to do that, since we didn't construct human brain. But we have control over what AI brains do, so we should be able to provide such an explanation. It is somewhat ironic that you yourself do not provide any argument in favor of your disagreement.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  Providing reasoning and providing citations are not the same thing. Reasons can be provided without citations; citations can be provided without reasons. LLMs have astounding utility citations notwithstanding.
  - js8 3y ago
    They are different, but perhaps you misunderstood my argument. Issue of plagiarism aside, we reason from facts, and it's the facts (or some other analysis, which is itself a fact) that should be sourced. That's why I agree with the original statement, and I argue not from a (moral) POV of preventing misattribution or plagiarism, but from a (practical) POV of veracity.
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      We don't only reason from facts. We also reason from value. Further, reasoning that rests on facts that does not cite facts still has massive utility. (See people, all day long.) Citations are useful, but not required.
throwaway4aday 3y ago
Useless is probably not the right word but it's a good way of summing up a lot of the current problems. If the model can clearly identify when something is an exact quote and also know the source then its output could be trusted for the most part and much more easily verified. It would certainly elevate the output of the model from "random blog post or forum chat" to "academic paper or official report" levels of trustworthiness. Citing sources is hugely important for validation, cited text allows an immediate lookup and simple equality check for verification after which you can use it as context to validate the rest of the claims. Like I said, it's a standard we apply to humans who have an equal propensity for hallucination, mistakes, and deception because it's a tried and true method for the reader to check the claims being made.
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
And this is a rather weak rebuttal.
Ferret7446 3y ago
And also patently false. Knowledge is knowledge, it's useful without source citations. Is the knowledge of how to do CPR somehow ineffective because I can't cite whether I studied the knowledge from website A or book B? Is reality a video game where skills only activate if you speak the magic words beforehand?

by preciz 3y ago

> A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless if it can't directly quote its sources. That's a strong and baseless statement.

njgingrich 3y ago

Well sure, it's easy to make a statement look bad if you only include half of it.

rpdillon 3y ago
The statement is equally hyperbolic both as quoted and in the original context. LLMs often can't quote sources, and those models are nevertheless useful to lots of people. Makes it hard for me to take the rest of the comment seriously.
- adastra22 3y ago
  A LLM that could quote sources would be even more useful, and in a world where both were available there’d be no reason to use the plagiarizing one.
  - Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
    that LLM is https://perplexity.ai https://perplexity.ai
ryanklee 3y ago
That was the whole statement. It doesn't have qualifiers left out
- njgingrich 3y ago
  The comment I replied to was updated to include the second half, it was originally just quoting > A model that possesses the entire collective knowledge of our civilization is useless
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    The additional context doesn't do any work.

js8 3y ago

I, for one, agree with the original statement. I think the hallmark of enlightenment (for example, in the scientific method) is that we are able to externalize the expert knowledge, that is, experts are usually required to provide reasoning behind their claims, and not just judgements. This is because we learned that experts cannot be 100% trusted, only if we can verify what they say we can somewhat reach what is truth (although expertise still provides a convenient shortcut). So not demanding this (and more) from an AI (an artificial expert) is a regression. AI should be capable of wholly explaining its reasoning, if we are to consider its statements to be taken seriously. It is understandable that humans have only limited capability to do that, since we didn't construct human brain. But we have control over what AI brains do, so we should be able to provide such an explanation. It is somewhat ironic that you yourself do not provide any argument in favor of your disagreement.

ryanklee 3y ago
Providing reasoning and providing citations are not the same thing. Reasons can be provided without citations; citations can be provided without reasons. LLMs have astounding utility citations notwithstanding.
- js8 3y ago
  They are different, but perhaps you misunderstood my argument. Issue of plagiarism aside, we reason from facts, and it's the facts (or some other analysis, which is itself a fact) that should be sourced. That's why I agree with the original statement, and I argue not from a (moral) POV of preventing misattribution or plagiarism, but from a (practical) POV of veracity.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    We don't only reason from facts. We also reason from value. Further, reasoning that rests on facts that does not cite facts still has massive utility. (See people, all day long.) Citations are useful, but not required.

throwaway4aday 3y ago

Useless is probably not the right word but it's a good way of summing up a lot of the current problems. If the model can clearly identify when something is an exact quote and also know the source then its output could be trusted for the most part and much more easily verified. It would certainly elevate the output of the model from "random blog post or forum chat" to "academic paper or official report" levels of trustworthiness. Citing sources is hugely important for validation, cited text allows an immediate lookup and simple equality check for verification after which you can use it as context to validate the rest of the claims. Like I said, it's a standard we apply to humans who have an equal propensity for hallucination, mistakes, and deception because it's a tried and true method for the reader to check the claims being made.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

And this is a rather weak rebuttal.

Ferret7446 3y ago

And also patently false. Knowledge is knowledge, it's useful without source citations. Is the knowledge of how to do CPR somehow ineffective because I can't cite whether I studied the knowledge from website A or book B? Is reality a video game where skills only activate if you speak the magic words beforehand?