3 ms·
> but if we manage to find a way to hit 70%, it would be better. Yet still absolutely worthless. > "correct for most part, but could be better" concept someth
by timewizard 1y ago
> but if we manage to find a way to hit 70%, it would be better.
Yet still absolutely worthless.
> "correct for most part, but could be better" concept something.
When humans do that we just call it "an error."
> so lets call that "correctness" or something
The appropriate term is "confidence." These LLM tools all could give you a confidence rating with each and every "fact" it attempts to relay to you. Of course they don't actually do that because no one would use a tool that confidently gives you answers based on a 70% self confidence rating.
We can quibble over terms but more appropriately this is just "garbage." It's a giant waste of energy and resources that produces flawed results. All of that money and effort could be better used elsewhere.
- vrighter 1y agoand even those confidence ratings are useless, imo. If trained with wrong data, it will report high confidence for the wrong answer. And curating a dataset is a black art in the first place
- furyofantares 1y ago> These LLM tools all could give you a confidence rating with each and every "fact" it attempts to relay to you. Of course they don't actually do that because no one would use a tool that confidently gives you answers based on a 70% self confidence rating. Why do you believe they could give you a confidence rating? They can't, at least not a meaningful one.
- diggan 1y ago> Yet still absolutely worthless. Depends on the context, doesn't it? Nothing is usually 100% worthless or 100% "worthy", there are grey areas in life where we're fine with "kind of right, most of the time". Are you saying these scenarios absolutely never exists in your world? I guess I'd be grateful if my life was so easy always.