4 ms·
> "Hallucination" is a terrible term to apply to LLMs. LLMs ONLY produce hallucinations. Is the result substantially different from the result coming from biol
by adolph 3y ago
> "Hallucination" is a terrible term to apply to LLMs. LLMs ONLY produce hallucinations.
Is the result substantially different from the result coming from biology?
IIRC, a theory is human minds evolved to perceive, store and evaluate not for facts or truths but for evolutionary fit.
- pixl97 3y agoTo really stir up the ant nest, religion is an excellent example of how humans are not evolved to evaluate facts at all.
- mistrial9 3y agoit is almost a definition of ignorance, to mock something that is not understood.. the hubris of science building the castles of economics are literally taking the world down ecologically right now.. both "rational" pursuits. Next, look at media content.. addiction prevelance .. etc .. not rational, not factual.. save the cheap shots for something of similar value
- adolph 3y agoA fact for one might just be a local minima for another. A falsehood for one person can turn out to be a statistical truth for a population. Are epistemologies to be evaluated for purity or for knowledge utility? A classic example are food taboos that don't make sense without a public health perspective. [F]ood taboos for pregnant and lactating women in Fiji selectively target the most toxic marine species, effectively reducing a woman's chances of fish poisoning by 30 per cent during pregnancy and 60 per cent during breastfeeding. We further analyse how these taboos are transmitted, showing support for cultural evolutionary models that combine familial transmission with selective learning from locally prestigious individuals. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1191 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010...
- pixl97 3y agoI mean, you're not stating anything interesting... For example lets take how we treat children. "Act good or Santa won't bring you gifts". Which really means "Please don't act like a turd burglar and I'll buy you some nice things one day a year". Instead of going straight to the second point, humans love putting hocus pocus of a magical being dropping gifts in the house to their children. Correct, many religious traditions like "hey don't eat pork" make sense if you have no means of cooking meat to temperature. But they have little purpose once you have a basic understanding of the reasoning behind why you got sick. The same goes for anything that is stuck in the stone ages of a sky daddy versus moving to the more complex domain of philosophy. If humans were optimized to seek truth, we'd have had the scientific revolution soon after we became intelligent. Instead it took 10,000 years or so before that happened.
- _heimdall 3y agoWell if the ants are already stirred... Treating scientific understanding as truth or fact is effectively converting it into a religion based on faith. We take those "facts" pit of context, wipe away caveats and assumptions made during the research, and leave ourselves with catchy headlines that can only be shared on faith as we don't know the context.
- Groxx 3y agoedit: nevermind! I had my threads mixed up. This is entirely a fair question for this thread. ------ previously ------ It is substantially less often correct, yes. That's why we're talking about it. Whether it's showing human-like cognition or not is irrelevant for its utility, or fitness for basically any non-cognition-research use.
- adolph 3y agoIs it an evaluable fact that any particular LLM "is substantially less often correct" than what? The comparison to biology is to ask if what is termed "hallucinations" are different from what human minds do.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]