3 ms·
> people will assume that it's checking for fraud and incorrect logic, when actually it's checking for self-consistency and consistency with training data. TBF
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> people will assume that it's checking for fraud and incorrect logic, when actually it's checking for self-consistency and consistency with training data.
TBF, this also applies to all humans.
- Groxx 2y agoThere is a clear difference in capability even though they share many failures
- nxobject 2y agoTo be fair, at least humans get to have collaborators from multiple perspectives and skillsets; a lot of the discussion about AI in research has assumed that a research team is one hive mind, when the best collaborations aren’t.
- lucianbr 2y agoNo, no it does not. Are you actually claiming with a straight face that not a single human can check for fraud or incorrect logic? Let's just claim any absurd thing in defense of the AI hype now.
- ForTheKidz 2y ago> Are you actually claiming with a straight face that not a single human can check for fraud or incorrect logic? No of course not, I was pointing out that we largely check "for self-consistency and consistency with training data" as well. Our checking of the coherency of other peoples work is presumably an extension of this. Regardless, computers already check for fraud and incorrect logic as well, albeit in different contexts. Neither humans or computers can do this with general competency, i.e. without specific training to do so.