4 ms·
The point about using the term bullshit (as used by Frankfurt [1]) is it implies indifference to truth. So the paper is pointing out that, rather than thinkin
by MattPalmer1086 2y ago
The point about using the term bullshit (as used by Frankfurt [1]) is it implies indifference to truth.
So the paper is pointing out that, rather than thinking of these models as being mostly truthful, but which sometimes hallucinate, it's more accurate to think of them as bullshit all the time.
It doesn't mean that the bullshit is wrong (although it could be). The model itself doesn't care.
[1] https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/01/23/harry-frankfurt-on-bullshit-and-lying/ https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/01/23/harry-frankfurt-on-b...
- tim333 2y agoI think a weakness of the paper is it doesn't give a simple definition of what it mean by bullshit. It says "bullshitting, in the Frankfurtian sense" which leaves you to perhaps read his book which can probably be interpreted various ways. If you look at the wikipedia page for On Bullshit it has: >Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Based on that ChatGPT isn't really bullshit. It doesn't really have intent to persuade. It's more like a souped up search engine that takes in a bunch of documents and tries to process the data in them in a way which matches your query. The truth or not out is largely determined by the truth or not of the data going in. And that seems rather good with ChatGPT. The add glue to Pizza stuff was a different LLM with different input data. It had read a reddit thread where someone had jokingly suggested that. A challenge with these models is to filter bullshit out of the input data though that is an issue with humans too.