4 ms·
> clearly was not designed for that purpose, I'm not aware of evidence that support that claim. If I ask ChatGPT "Give me a recipe for squirrel lemon stew" and
by munificent 2y ago
> clearly was not designed for that purpose,
I'm not aware of evidence that support that claim. If I ask ChatGPT "Give me a recipe for squirrel lemon stew" and it so happens that one person did write a recipe for that exact thing on the Internet, then I would expect that the most accurate, truthful response would be that exact recipe. Anything else would essentially be hallucination.
- zmmmmm 2y agoi think you are misconceiving then how LLMs work / what they are You can certainly try to hit a nail with a screw driver, but that doesn't make the screw driver a hammer.
- paulddraper 2y agoPerfect analogy.
- munificent 2y agoAs I understand it, LLMs are intended to answer questions as "truthfully" as they can. Their understanding of truth comes from the corpus they are trained on. If you ask a question where the corpus happens to have something very close to that question and its answer, I would expect the LLM to burp up that answer. Anything less would be hallucination. Of course, if I ask a question that isn't as well served by the corpus, it has to do its best to interpolate an answer from what it knows. But ultimately its job is to extract information from a corpus and serve it up with as much semantic fidelity to the original corpus as possible. If I ask how many moons Earth has, it should say "one". If I ask it what the third line of Poe's "The Raven" is, it should say "While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,". Anything else is wrong. If you ask it a specific enough question where only a tiny corner of its corpus is relevant, I would expect it to end up either reproducing the possibly copyright piece of that corpus or, perhaps worse, cough up some bullshit because it's trying to avoid overfitting. (I'm ignoring for the moment LLM use cases like image synthesis where you want it to hallucinate to be "creative".)
- kortilla 2y agoThey are all hallucinations. Calling lies hallucinations and truths normal output is nonsense.
- zmmmmm 2y agoI get that's what you and a lot of people want it to be, but it isn't what they are. They are quite literally probabilistic text generation engines. Let's emphasise that: the output is produced randomly by sampling from distributions, or in simple terms, like rolling a dice. In a concrete sense it is non-deterministic. Even if an exact answer is in the corpus, its output is not going to be that answer, but the most probable answer from all the text in the corpus. If that one answer that exactly matches contradicts the weight of other less exact answers you won't see it. And you probably wouldn't want to - if I ask if donuts are radioactive and one person explicitly said that on the internet you probably aren't going to tell me you want it to spit out that answer just because it exactly matches what you asked. You want it to learn from the overwhelimg corpus of related knowledge that says donuts are food, people routinely eat them, etc etc and tell you they aren't radioactive.
- remuskaos 2y agoRecipes are not copyrightable for that exact reason.
- sleepybrett 2y agoSubstitue recipe for literally any other piece of unique information.
- freejazz 2y agoCopyright doesn't apply to unique pieces of information. Copyright applies to unique expressions. You can't copyright a fact.