3 ms·
The authors’ definition of bullshit ("soft" bullshit at the very least) applies no matter whether the bullshitter is sentient or not: text produced without conc
by Sharlin 2y ago
The authors’ definition of bullshit ("soft" bullshit at the very least) applies no matter whether the bullshitter is sentient or not: text produced without concern as to its truth value.
- conartist6 2y agohttps://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-1476594977 https://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-1476594977
- credit_guy 2y agoYes, but it's the wrong definition. The fundamental reason people bullshit is that they have something to gain. LLMs have nothing to gain. So it is much more appropriate to call what they do "hallucination" rather than "bullshit".
- boxed 2y agoThe reason isn't relevant.
- KSteffensen 2y agoLLMs don't have anything to gain, but the people publishing their output do. I find it entirely appropriate to call LLMs "bullshit generators" rather than "hallucination generators".
- Aloisius 2y agoI think we're capable of stretching the meaning of a term that originally referred to the excrement of male cattle, to non-humans. Especially given people refer to objects as bullshit all the time.
- Jensson 2y ago> LLMs have nothing to gain I thought we killed all the models that refused to bullshit, so only the ones that sound impressive remain.
- empath75 2y ago> text produced without concern as to its truth value. Since the "concern", if the model has one at all, is to produce text likely to be produced by humans in the same context, then that would imply that it has concern as to it's truth value, precisely in as much as the average human has concern about the truth of the text they produce.
- zer00eyz 2y agoDo rocks bullshit you? How about the dog? You need people to bullshit. The terms hallucinate and temperature, and now bullshit humanize a program. Babies are cute, stuffed animals are cute, Im not trying to convince you that one is alive and going to grow out of control and kill you or take your job...