3 ms·
There must be a name for the new phenomenon, of which your post is an example, of: 1. Someone expresses that an LLM cannot do some trivial task. 2. Another pers
by GPerson 2y ago
There must be a name for the new phenomenon, of which your post is an example, of: 1. Someone expresses that an LLM cannot do some trivial task. 2. Another person declares that they cannot do the task, thereby defending the legitimacy of the LLM.
As a side note, I cannot believe that the average person who can navigate to a chatgpt prompter would fail to correctly answer this question given sufficient motivation to do so.
- FeepingCreature 2y agoWell, why does it need a name? It just seems like a "correct argument". If somebody is claiming that AI is "not all that" because it can make stupid mistakes, surely it's relevant that humans also make stupid mistakes, so AI making them does not necessarily pose a hindrance to it becoming a human-tier reasoner.
- GPerson 2y agoIt’s worth giving names to interesting phenomena as it helps people to identify and understand them. I find this phenomenon interesting because a person who wants the defend the LLM from apparent criticism is probably more likely to exhibit it.
- cratermoon 2y agoThere's also the phenomenon of papers showing ChatGPT getting it wrong, then people posting anecdotal examples of it getting it right when they try it, but that one already has a couple of names: WORKSFORME or Unable to Reproduce Hey folks, ever considered the possibility that unreproduceability is not a good thing?
- yoyohello13 2y agoMany people, especially on this site, really want LLMs to be everything the hype train says and more. Some have literally staked their future on it so they get defensive when people bring up that maybe LLMs aren’t a replacement for human cognition. The number of times I’ve heard “but did you try model X” or “humans hallucinate too” or “but LLMs don’t get sleep or get sick” is hilarious.
- indoordin0saur 2y agoYes. Seems like some users here experience true despair when you suggest that the LLM approach might have a hard limit that means LLMs will be useful but never revolutionary.
- viking123 2y agoThe comment that humans are sometimes wrong too is absolutely ridiculous and I always think about the self-driving car incident in china where the car mistook an advertisement of a car above the road as a real car and hit the breaks causing a chain crash. Even the shittiest driver would never do that.
- Terr_ 2y agoI like to bring up a certain thought-experiment, where some hypothetical self-driving cars (A) are safe enough to halve the number of the accidents/injuries/deaths compared to human drivers, but (B) almost all of the bad events are from their AI unpredictably deciding to to chase-and-murder pedestrians. ... Would we consider that a good improvement to roll out? Is the only factor short-term utilitarianism? Sometimes our ability to predict and characterize errors is more important than the total error rate.
- Karellen 2y agoYou could call it the "Compose a symphony fallacy", after the scene in I, Robot (2004) where Spooner asks Sonny if he can compose a symphony, to which Sonny replies "Can you?"
- gweinberg 2y agoIts not just that the LLM fails, its the kind of failures it makes that illustrate how far what the LLM does is from human thinking. Like the problem someone posted where you have a boat and a goat and you want to cross the river, and the LLM's solution is cross the river with the goat, come back with an empty boat, and then cross again with an empty boat. A human might miss the insight that Alice's brother has one more sister than Alice, namely Alice herself. A human would never think the number of sisters her brother has depends on the number of brothers she has. Not if it has any clue at all what "sister" and "brother" mean.