2 ms·
Re: corpus content, I think we're talking past each other. I'm saying that current models aren't being blindly trained on untrusted blogspam, and that there's a
by crazygringo 2y ago
Re: corpus content, I think we're talking past each other. I'm saying that current models aren't being blindly trained on untrusted blogspam, and that there's a lot of work done to verify, structure, transform, etc. And earlier models were trained with lower-quality content, as companies were trying to figure out how much scale mattered. Now they're paying huge amounts of money to improve the quality of what they ingest, to better shape the quality of output. What they take from Reddit, they're not blindly ingesting every comment from every user. My overall main point stands: we have viable, working, scalable mechanisms to avoid the "pollution" you're worried about.
> What. Come on, I think you wouldnt agree with your own statement after reading it once more -Factual correctness is not a matter of degrees.
Of course it is. An LLM can be correct 30% of the time, 80% of the time, 95% of the time, 99% of the time. If that's not a matter of degrees, I don't know what is. If you're looking for 100% perfection, I think you'll find that not even humans can do that. ;)
- intended 2y ago> I think we're talking past each other Likely. Re: > we have viable, working, scalable mechanisms to avoid the "pollution" you're worried about. Do note - it’s the scalable mechanisms that I am looking at. I dont think the state of the art has shifted much since the last paper by OpenAI. Can you link me to some new information or sources that lend credence to your claim. > An LLM can be correct 30% of the time, 80% of the time, 95%… That would be the error rate, which can be a matter of degrees. However factual correctness largely cannot - the capital of Sweden today is Stockholm, with 0% variation in that answer.