3 ms·
I’m going to double down on this one: an LLM is only as good as its training data. A hallucination to me is an invented piece of information, here it’s going on
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I’m going to double down on this one: an LLM is only as good as its training data. A hallucination to me is an invented piece of information, here it’s going on something real that it’s seen. To me that’s at best contamination, at worst an adversarial attack - something that’s been planted in the data. Here this is obviously not the case, which is why I said “more in common with” instead of “is” above.
Semantics perhaps, but that’s my take.
- ec109685 2y agoIt’s been trained to produce valid code, fed millions of examples, and in this case it’s outputting invented syntax. Whether there’s an example in its training data, it’s still a hallucination and shouldn’t have been output since it’s not valid.
- powerapple 2y agoTo be fair, it is not trained to produce VALID code, it is trained to produce code in the training data. From the language model point of view, it is not hallucination because it is not making up facts outside its training data.