2 ms·

Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems. At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was. With LL

Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems. At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was. With LLM's the connection between the answer and the source is completely lost. You can't even tell why it answered a certain way.

ben_w 2y ago
> Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems. I didn't deny either of those things, I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples, including "King of the United States" -> "Barack Obama". Just because it showed the link to breitbart doesn't mean it was not hallucinating. > At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was. The former does not imply the latter. You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden — an argument that I saw some on the American right make to criticise Google for failing to show their version of events. > With LLM's the connection between the answer and the source is completely lost. You can't even tell why it answered a certain way. Also not so. The free version of ChatGPT supports search directly, so it allows you to have references.
- skydhash 2y ago
  > I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples They don't. Google added a weird widget that do hallucinate. But the result list is still accurate, even though it may be biased towards certain sources. > You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden A bit pedantic, but a search engine returns a list of results according to the query you posted. There's no question-answer oracle. If you type "King of the United States", you will get pages that have the terms listed. Maybe there will be semantic manipulations like "King -> Head of state -> President", but generally it's on you to post the correct keywords.

ben_w 2y ago

> Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems. I didn't deny either of those things, I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples, including "King of the United States" -> "Barack Obama". Just because it showed the link to breitbart doesn't mean it was not hallucinating. > At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was. The former does not imply the latter. You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden — an argument that I saw some on the American right make to criticise Google for failing to show their version of events. > With LLM's the connection between the answer and the source is completely lost. You can't even tell why it answered a certain way. Also not so. The free version of ChatGPT supports search directly, so it allows you to have references.

skydhash 2y ago
> I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples They don't. Google added a weird widget that do hallucinate. But the result list is still accurate, even though it may be biased towards certain sources. > You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden A bit pedantic, but a search engine returns a list of results according to the query you posted. There's no question-answer oracle. If you type "King of the United States", you will get pages that have the terms listed. Maybe there will be semantic manipulations like "King -> Head of state -> President", but generally it's on you to post the correct keywords.