4 ms·
While LLMs have incredible potential, and are even downright useful in their current format, they have the rather nasty tendency to confidently present bullshit
by chefandy 2y ago
While LLMs have incredible potential, and are even downright useful in their current format, they have the rather nasty tendency to confidently present bullshit that passes the smell test for most people. When it's wrong, it's not just wrong, by design, it's wrong but sounds plausible. Considering most people with subject matter expertise aren't going to consult such a bot for their own areas of expertise, that means most people will not be able to detect it intuitively.
Good example: I sunk probably an hour into trying to get Gemini Advanced to help me integrate it with a personal Google Calendar account. I kept asking it things and going crazy because nothing lined up with the way things worked. Finally, it referred to itself as Bard and I realized it was giving me information for a different product. As soon as I asked "are you giving me instructions for Gemini Advanced or Bard?" it was like "OH LOL WOOPS!! YOU GOT ME BRO! XD I CAN'T DO ANY OF THAT! LOL." Which, honestly, is great. Being able to evaluate its answers to realize it's wrong is really neat. Unfortunately, it was neat too late and too manually to stop me from wasting a ton of time.
I have decades of experience working in software-- imagine some rando that didn't know what the hell Bard was or even imagine this thing with "Advanced" in the name couldn't even distinguish between its own and other products' documentation.
- floren 2y ago> As soon as I asked "are you giving me instructions for Gemini Advanced or Bard?" it was like "OH LOL WOOPS!! YOU GOT ME BRO! XD I CAN'T DO ANY OF THAT! LOL." Which, honestly, is great. Being able to evaluate its answers to realize it's wrong is really neat. Did it evaluate its answers, or did your expression of doubt cause the eager-to-please language model to switch from "generate (wrong) instructions because that's what the user asked for" to "acknowledge an error because that's what the user asked for"? How many times have we seen "Oops, you're right! 2 + 2 is actually 5! I apologize for saying it was 4 earlier!"
- chefandy 2y agoI suppose whether or not these things evaluate anything at all depends on your perspective, but as soon as I asked if it was giving me the correct information, it did actually give me useful information after that without further prompting.