4 ms·

> Suppose 99.3% of answers to 'What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" are "I don't know that." and the remainder are "11 m/s". What would the mod

> Suppose 99.3% of answers to 'What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" are "I don't know that." and the remainder are "11 m/s". What would the model answer? I don't know :) Actually though, I think the best response would be to say that the answer to the question isn't clear, but that 11 m/s is sometimes given as an estimate. In the real world, if I asked 100 ornithologists to estimate the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, and 99 of them told me "I have no idea" then I'd be pretty skeptical of the one ornithologist who did give me an answer, even if they were very confident.

ta8645 3y ago
I think the best response is to steal the joke and repeat it without comment. "Eleven meters per second." Full stop. It's humorous, and any reasonable interlocutor understands not to take it seriously. Of course, there are more serious questions that demand more serious answers. LLMs will eventually need to be able to understand the current context and assess the appropriate level of confidence required in any answer.
username332211 3y ago
The thing is, the usefulness of a question answering system is in answering questions people don't generally know. We don't need an answering system for things that are common knowledge. And it's not uncommon that certain knowledge would be, well uncommon even among experts. Experts specialize. Since the usefulness of ornithological examples is getting exhausted, let's say one out of a hundred lawyers works in bankruptcy. If you ask a million lawyers about the provisions of 11 USC § 1129 and only ten thousand know the answer, is the answer untrustworthy, just because bankruptcy lawyers are far rarer than civil and criminal lawyers?
- caditinpiscinam 3y ago
  I agree that without deeper reasoning skills it's not obvious how a model should handle this sort of situation. In the end, I'm not saying that fixing the hallucination issue is easy, but rather that hallucination might be better understood as a property of the training data everyone is using, rather than the models themselves.

ta8645 3y ago

I think the best response is to steal the joke and repeat it without comment. "Eleven meters per second." Full stop. It's humorous, and any reasonable interlocutor understands not to take it seriously. Of course, there are more serious questions that demand more serious answers. LLMs will eventually need to be able to understand the current context and assess the appropriate level of confidence required in any answer.

username332211 3y ago

The thing is, the usefulness of a question answering system is in answering questions people don't generally know. We don't need an answering system for things that are common knowledge. And it's not uncommon that certain knowledge would be, well uncommon even among experts. Experts specialize. Since the usefulness of ornithological examples is getting exhausted, let's say one out of a hundred lawyers works in bankruptcy. If you ask a million lawyers about the provisions of 11 USC § 1129 and only ten thousand know the answer, is the answer untrustworthy, just because bankruptcy lawyers are far rarer than civil and criminal lawyers?

caditinpiscinam 3y ago
I agree that without deeper reasoning skills it's not obvious how a model should handle this sort of situation. In the end, I'm not saying that fixing the hallucination issue is easy, but rather that hallucination might be better understood as a property of the training data everyone is using, rather than the models themselves.