2 ms·
Humans train on self-generated data all the time, but compared to today's LLMs, humans have superior reasoning ability, which enables them to separate good from
by chmod775 3y ago
Humans train on self-generated data all the time, but compared to today's LLMs, humans have superior reasoning ability, which enables them to separate good from bad data. Humans can confirm many things for themselves if need be and our social hierarchies crystallize authority figures which perform curation for others. On top of that humans have a lifetime of experience with the real world, while LLMs rely only on reports of what the real world is like.
All in all LLMs being more gullible than your average 6 year old is really not helping. Humans will have to (continue to) curate the data we train LLMs on.
- jmye 3y agoThis view of people seems… idealistic, given the number of people who uncritically look to Facebook or Reddit for information (and then happily parrot whatever memes they find) and the number of LLMs that do the same. I think people are substantially worse at figuring out what is “good” data, and I think a huge number of people are/are starting to nominate LLMs as those “authority figures”. And, given that, I think there is a low ceiling for the creators of these tools to clear to make them appealing to users.
- gorjusborg 3y ago> a huge number of people are starting to nominate LLMs as those "authority figures" When LLMs started to go mainstream I said I was not afraid of AI, but was afraid of (unwise) people with AI. This phenomenon is what I foresaw. The worst thinkers are the ones most hungry to outsource their decision making. The fact that LLM output requires good judgement by the recipient to filter the wheat from the chaff, and those with poor judgement skills are most likely to lean on decision tools makes for a potentially volatile situation.