3 ms·
The "it's making mistakes" phase might be based on the testing strategy. Remember the old bit about the media-- the stories are always 100% infalliable except
by hakfoo 2y ago
The "it's making mistakes" phase might be based on the testing strategy.
Remember the old bit about the media-- the stories are always 100% infalliable except strangely in YOUR personal field of expertise.
I suspect it's something similar with AI products.
People test them with toy problems -- "Hey ChatGPT, what's the square root of 36", and then with something close to their core knowledge.
It might learn to solve a lot of the toy problems, but plenty of us are still seeing a lot of hallucinations in the "core knowledge" questions. But we see people then taking that product-- that they know isn't good in at least one vertical-- and trying to apply it to other contexts, where they may be less qualified to validate if the answer is right.
- danielbarla 2y agoI think a crucial aspect is to only apply chatbots' answers to a domain where you can rapidly validate their correctness (or alternatively, to take their answers with a huge pinch of salt, or simply as creative search space exploration). For me, the number of times where it's led me down a hallucinated, impossible, or thoroughly invalid rabbit hole have been relatively minimal when compared against the number of times when it has significantly helped. I really do think the key is in how you use them, for what types of problems/domains, and having an approach that maximizes your ability to catch issues early.
- latexr 2y ago> Remember the old bit about the media-- the stories are always 100% infalliable except strangely in YOUR personal field of expertise. Gell-Mann amnesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...