6 ms·

I think folks have taken the wrong lesson from this. It’s not that they added a new feature because there was demand. They added a new feature because technol

by gortok 1y ago

I think folks have taken the wrong lesson from this. It’s not that they added a new feature because there was demand. They added a new feature because technology hallucinated a feature that didn’t exist. The savior of tech, generative AI, was telling folks a feature existed that didn’t exist. That’s what the headline is, and in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again, because next time it might not be so benign as it was this time.

aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
bravesoul2 1y ago
There was demand for the problem. ChatGPT created demand for this solution.
lexandstuff 1y ago
Sometimes you just have to deal with the world as it is, not how you think it should be.
- gortok 1y ago
  Is it your argument that the folks that make generative AI applications have nothing to improve from this example?
  - rustyminnow 1y ago
    If I were someone who ran ChatGPT then yeah, I'd have something to improve. But most of us aren't, and can't do anything about it - so might as well make lemons into lemonade instead of getting hung up on the obvious and unchangeable fact that our future is filled with AI garbage.
nomel 1y ago
> in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again This would be a world without generative AI available to the public, at the moment. Requiring perfection would either mean guardrails that would make it useless for most cases, or no LLM access until AGI exists, which are both completely irrational, since many people are finding practical value in its current imperfect state. The current state of LLM is useful for what it's useful for, warnings of hallucinations are present on every official public interface, and its limitations are quickly understood with any real use. Nearly everyone in AI research is working on this problem, directly or indirectly.
- gortok 1y ago
  No one is “requiring perfection”, but hallucination is a major issue and is in the opposite direction of the “goal” of AGI. If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > No one is “requiring perfection” > If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago. Those sentences aren't compatible. > but hallucination is a major issue Again, every official public AI interface has warnings/disclaimers for this issue. It's well known. It's not some secret. Every AI researcher is directly or indirectly working on this. > is in the opposite direction of the “goal” of AGI This isn't a logical statement, so it's difficult to respond to. Hallucination isn't a direction that's being headed towards, it's being actively, with intent and $$$, headed away from.
    - lucianbr 1y ago
      > Those sentences aren't compatible. My web browser isn't perfect, but it does not hallucinate inexistent webpages. It sometimes crashes, it sometimes renders wrong, it has bugs and errors. It does not invent plausible-looking information. There really is a lot middle gound between perfect and "accept anything we give you, no matter how huge the problems".
JimDabell 1y ago
You sound like all the naysayers when Wikipedia was new. Did you know anybody can go onto Wikipedia and edit a page to add a lie‽ How can you possibly trust what you read on there‽ Do you think Wikipedia should issue groveling apologies every time it happens? Meanwhile, sensible people have concluded that, even though it isn’t perfect, Wikipedia is still very, very useful – despite the possibility of being misled occasionally.
- fzeroracer 1y ago
  OK, so how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then?
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    You have ignored my point. A technology can be extremely useful despite not being perfect. Failure cases can be taken into consideration rationally without turning it into a moral panic. You have no ability to edit Wikipedia to stop it from lying. Somebody can come along and re-add the lie a millisecond later.
    - fzeroracer 1y ago
      No, I didn't ignore your point. I invalidated it because you're comparing apples to oranges. And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. I can go on any page I want, right now, and make changes to the page. If someone readds a lie, then eventually we can hit consensus as other editors enter the discussion. Wikipedia's basis is formed by consensus and controlled by individuals like you and I. ChatGPT is not. It is controlled by one company; I cannot go edit the weights of ChatGPT to prevent it from lying about my app or anything else I do. I can only petition them to change it and hope that either I have enough clout or have a legal basis to do so.
      - JimDabell 1y ago
        You’ve changed your position. This is what you originally said: > how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then? This is what you have changed to: > And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. You do not have the ability to edit Wikipedia so it stops lying, which is the relevant factor here.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rbits 1y ago
Sure, but this isn't new. LLMs have been doing this for ages. That's why people aren't talking about it as much.

by gortok 1y ago

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

bravesoul2 1y ago

There was demand for the problem. ChatGPT created demand for this solution.

lexandstuff 1y ago

Sometimes you just have to deal with the world as it is, not how you think it should be.

gortok 1y ago
Is it your argument that the folks that make generative AI applications have nothing to improve from this example?
- rustyminnow 1y ago
  If I were someone who ran ChatGPT then yeah, I'd have something to improve. But most of us aren't, and can't do anything about it - so might as well make lemons into lemonade instead of getting hung up on the obvious and unchangeable fact that our future is filled with AI garbage.

nomel 1y ago

> in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again This would be a world without generative AI available to the public, at the moment. Requiring perfection would either mean guardrails that would make it useless for most cases, or no LLM access until AGI exists, which are both completely irrational, since many people are finding practical value in its current imperfect state. The current state of LLM is useful for what it's useful for, warnings of hallucinations are present on every official public interface, and its limitations are quickly understood with any real use. Nearly everyone in AI research is working on this problem, directly or indirectly.

gortok 1y ago
No one is “requiring perfection”, but hallucination is a major issue and is in the opposite direction of the “goal” of AGI. If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago.
- nomel 1y ago
  > No one is “requiring perfection” > If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago. Those sentences aren't compatible. > but hallucination is a major issue Again, every official public AI interface has warnings/disclaimers for this issue. It's well known. It's not some secret. Every AI researcher is directly or indirectly working on this. > is in the opposite direction of the “goal” of AGI This isn't a logical statement, so it's difficult to respond to. Hallucination isn't a direction that's being headed towards, it's being actively, with intent and $$$, headed away from.
  - lucianbr 1y ago
    > Those sentences aren't compatible. My web browser isn't perfect, but it does not hallucinate inexistent webpages. It sometimes crashes, it sometimes renders wrong, it has bugs and errors. It does not invent plausible-looking information. There really is a lot middle gound between perfect and "accept anything we give you, no matter how huge the problems".

JimDabell 1y ago

You sound like all the naysayers when Wikipedia was new. Did you know anybody can go onto Wikipedia and edit a page to add a lie‽ How can you possibly trust what you read on there‽ Do you think Wikipedia should issue groveling apologies every time it happens? Meanwhile, sensible people have concluded that, even though it isn’t perfect, Wikipedia is still very, very useful – despite the possibility of being misled occasionally.

fzeroracer 1y ago
OK, so how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then?
- JimDabell 1y ago
  You have ignored my point. A technology can be extremely useful despite not being perfect. Failure cases can be taken into consideration rationally without turning it into a moral panic. You have no ability to edit Wikipedia to stop it from lying. Somebody can come along and re-add the lie a millisecond later.
  - fzeroracer 1y ago
    No, I didn't ignore your point. I invalidated it because you're comparing apples to oranges. And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. I can go on any page I want, right now, and make changes to the page. If someone readds a lie, then eventually we can hit consensus as other editors enter the discussion. Wikipedia's basis is formed by consensus and controlled by individuals like you and I. ChatGPT is not. It is controlled by one company; I cannot go edit the weights of ChatGPT to prevent it from lying about my app or anything else I do. I can only petition them to change it and hope that either I have enough clout or have a legal basis to do so.
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      You’ve changed your position. This is what you originally said: > how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then? This is what you have changed to: > And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. You do not have the ability to edit Wikipedia so it stops lying, which is the relevant factor here.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rbits 1y ago

Sure, but this isn't new. LLMs have been doing this for ages. That's why people aren't talking about it as much.