3 ms·
No, actually, it's not a solution. A reasonable answer to questions like "Tell me about John Doe?" would be either "I don't know John Doe, so I can't tell you a
by rob74 2y ago
No, actually, it's not a solution. A reasonable answer to questions like "Tell me about John Doe?" would be either "I don't know John Doe, so I can't tell you anything about him" or "There are several people named John Doe, which one are you interested in? [followed by a list]". Making up stuff about people (including allegations of corruption or sexual misconduct) is not a reasonable answer to this question. But getting ChatGPT to respect that is probably harder than just adding a filter...
- Terr_ 2y agoI believe the parent-post was a joke about how LLMs (at least for these use-cases) are so inherently flawed that the real "solution" is to make them unusable. Kind of like how the defects and dangers of using radium toothpaste can be "fixed" by permanently encasing each tube into an unopenable lead container.
- latexr 2y ago> There are several people named John Doe, which one are you interested in? [followed by a list] How would that work? Either the list repeats the same name over and over, making it useless, or it needs to give a bit of context about each name and we’re back at square one of the information being possibly wrong.
- rob74 2y agoI was thinking something along the lines of how Wikipedia does it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith (of course this name is a pretty extreme example)
- wtetzner 2y ago> we’re back at square one of the information being possibly wrong. Isn't this the case with everything an LLM produces?
- latexr 2y agoExactly, that’s my point.
- cle 2y agoGetting people to respect that is even harder. And in most cases it isn't even actionable.