3 ms·

Idk how you're promoting, but hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like t

Idk how you're promoting, but hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE.

blibble 3y ago
> There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE. yes, it's called overfitting
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cle 3y ago
  There are entire industries devoted to helping humans overfit on standardized tests. Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want--which in the case of education, is usually credentials, not knowledge.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want The problem is Goodhart's. Tests aren't used to measure your ability to overfit them, but to measure your general knowledge. Obviously the latter is exceptionally difficult to measure so we settle for an easier metric. The problem comes from believing that the measurement well aligns with the thing we set out to measure. The same is for humans as is for machines and it is why it is insane to say something like "look, GPT did well on the BAR exam, it should be able to practice law." Because we explicitly do not want a legal system that follows the letter of the law (rather spirit of the law) and it's clear which one GPT would do. Yes, there's a problem that humans go this way too, but it's something we can solve if we are willing to admit the fuzziness of our metrics.
godelski 3y ago
> hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. How do you know? If you're using it as a tutor you're using it to get knowledge that you don't know. Sure, it doesn't get things that are obviously (to you) wrong, but what about subtle things? At the graduate level subtly dominates and many concepts are counter intuitive or non-obvious in the first place (otherwise they wouldn't be expert knowledge).
- hereme888 3y ago
  I know because I check often with what I already know, or official material/explanations written by humans. Gpt helps me connect dots and uncover useful details I didn't previously have, and that official explanations didn't include. And just about every time I've double-checked, it's right, even when it didn't make sense to me (counter-intuitive/non-obvious due to my mistakes in reading comprehension or previously erroneous concepts in my mind).
  - godelski 3y ago
    Okay, with this added nuance I'm not worried. But I think we should be explicit about this because it is difficult to distinguish if people are doing this or not and it is quite reasonable to believe that they are not. I have no issues with anyone using GPT as a __noisy__ tutor. But we just must be clear it is easy to get fooled, difficult to validate, and easy to cause GPT to change its answer. There's a high rate of people using it as a non-noisy tutor, so we can't be implicit. FWIW, I use GPT in a very similar way, and frequently. Especially with the decline of Google and especially for high level topics. It functions very well as a fuzzy search and often even when wrong (which is frequent for me when asking high level math questions, think post PDEs) there's still words or phrases that help me significantly narrow down a Google search. Which any Google Search engineer should not be reading this as "replace Google Search with GPT/Bard"!!!!! They work in tandem!!! I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH and do not want to see the hell that that creates.
    - joquarky 3y ago
      The level of cautiousness many feel about the risks of AI hallucinations feels a bit excessive in a world where many people can easily obtain chainsaws without the need to fulfill any significant prerequisites

Idk how you're promoting, but hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE.

blibble 3y ago

> There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE. yes, it's called overfitting

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cle 3y ago
There are entire industries devoted to helping humans overfit on standardized tests. Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want--which in the case of education, is usually credentials, not knowledge.
- godelski 3y ago
  > Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want The problem is Goodhart's. Tests aren't used to measure your ability to overfit them, but to measure your general knowledge. Obviously the latter is exceptionally difficult to measure so we settle for an easier metric. The problem comes from believing that the measurement well aligns with the thing we set out to measure. The same is for humans as is for machines and it is why it is insane to say something like "look, GPT did well on the BAR exam, it should be able to practice law." Because we explicitly do not want a legal system that follows the letter of the law (rather spirit of the law) and it's clear which one GPT would do. Yes, there's a problem that humans go this way too, but it's something we can solve if we are willing to admit the fuzziness of our metrics.

godelski 3y ago

> hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. How do you know? If you're using it as a tutor you're using it to get knowledge that you don't know. Sure, it doesn't get things that are obviously (to you) wrong, but what about subtle things? At the graduate level subtly dominates and many concepts are counter intuitive or non-obvious in the first place (otherwise they wouldn't be expert knowledge).

hereme888 3y ago
I know because I check often with what I already know, or official material/explanations written by humans. Gpt helps me connect dots and uncover useful details I didn't previously have, and that official explanations didn't include. And just about every time I've double-checked, it's right, even when it didn't make sense to me (counter-intuitive/non-obvious due to my mistakes in reading comprehension or previously erroneous concepts in my mind).
- godelski 3y ago
  Okay, with this added nuance I'm not worried. But I think we should be explicit about this because it is difficult to distinguish if people are doing this or not and it is quite reasonable to believe that they are not. I have no issues with anyone using GPT as a __noisy__ tutor. But we just must be clear it is easy to get fooled, difficult to validate, and easy to cause GPT to change its answer. There's a high rate of people using it as a non-noisy tutor, so we can't be implicit. FWIW, I use GPT in a very similar way, and frequently. Especially with the decline of Google and especially for high level topics. It functions very well as a fuzzy search and often even when wrong (which is frequent for me when asking high level math questions, think post PDEs) there's still words or phrases that help me significantly narrow down a Google search. Which any Google Search engineer should not be reading this as "replace Google Search with GPT/Bard"!!!!! They work in tandem!!! I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH and do not want to see the hell that that creates.
  - joquarky 3y ago
    The level of cautiousness many feel about the risks of AI hallucinations feels a bit excessive in a world where many people can easily obtain chainsaws without the need to fulfill any significant prerequisites