30 ms·

> None of those are actually things we need to worry about. Humans have already been doing all of that stuff at scale without LLMs. I don't think we are speaki

by pests 2y ago

> None of those are actually things we need to worry about. Humans have already been doing all of that stuff at scale without LLMs. I don't think we are speaking about the same levels of scale. This reminds me of "its okay for police to look at license plates in public" to a massive distributed network of surveillance cameras doing real time plate recognition and database limits. It's a difference in degree, not in kind. > AI isn't even slightly helpful for weapons manufacturing or nuclear enrichment. I think it could be. I know quite a lot about nuclear history and the fundamentals, but there are 100 questions off the top of my head that I would need to research, find the correct sources, get all the data, figure out which is correct or which might be a smokescreen or a fudge, compile all this into actionable data, to get anything even remotely close to correct. The LLM can assist in this. Even you say the techniques are well known and published in open literature - I personally don't know where to start to find that information. I'm sure the LLM can not only list these publications, but give me reasonable answers to the 100 questions I had above. In a literal fraction of the time.

blooalien 2y ago
> "I'm sure the LLM can not only list these publications, but give me reasonable answers to the 100 questions I had above. In a literal fraction of the time." Sure. It can also just as easily give you totally wrong answers that sound totally plausible, and it'll seem quite convinced of the accuracy of it's output, because it's just stringing "tokens" (bits of encoded language) together seeking to generate valid sounding output based on it's training dataset and the user's input. What most people label as LLM "hallucinations" is actually all that LLMs do. They don't actually "understand" the output they're generating. It's all statistics and fancy math. They're just as certain of an "incorrect" output as they are of a correct one, because from the "point of view" of the LLM, all output they generate is actually correct, as long as it doesn't outright violate the rules of the language being output or the dataset the model was trained on.
- pests 2y ago
  Well, isn't that what they are going to respond right? You're assuming it will give wrong answers. Why not check?

by pests 2y ago

blooalien 2y ago

> "I'm sure the LLM can not only list these publications, but give me reasonable answers to the 100 questions I had above. In a literal fraction of the time." Sure. It can also just as easily give you totally wrong answers that sound totally plausible, and it'll seem quite convinced of the accuracy of it's output, because it's just stringing "tokens" (bits of encoded language) together seeking to generate valid sounding output based on it's training dataset and the user's input. What most people label as LLM "hallucinations" is actually all that LLMs do. They don't actually "understand" the output they're generating. It's all statistics and fancy math. They're just as certain of an "incorrect" output as they are of a correct one, because from the "point of view" of the LLM, all output they generate is actually correct, as long as it doesn't outright violate the rules of the language being output or the dataset the model was trained on.

pests 2y ago
Well, isn't that what they are going to respond right? You're assuming it will give wrong answers. Why not check?