3 ms·
> Why so? Because actual mentally disturbed people are often difficult to distinguish from the internet's huge population of trolls, bored baloney-spewers, con
by bell-cot 1y ago
> Why so?
Because actual mentally disturbed people are often difficult to distinguish from the internet's huge population of trolls, bored baloney-spewers, conspiracy believers, drunks, etc.
And the "common sense / least hypothesis" issues of laying such blame, for profoundly difficult questions, when LLM technology has a hard time with the trivial-looking task of counting the r's in raspberry.
And the high social cost of "officially" blaming major problems with LLM's on mentally disturbed people. (Especially if you want a "good guy" reputation.)
- devmor 1y agoDoes it matter whether they are actually mentally disturbed, trolls, etc when the LLMs treat it all with the same weight? That sounds like it makes the problem worse to me, not a point that bolsters your view.
- bell-cot 1y agoClick the "parent" links until you see this exchange: >> ...Bing felt like it had a mental breakdown... > LLMs have ingested the social media content of mentally disturbed people... My point was that formally asserting "LLMs have mental breakdowns because of input from mentally disturbed people" is problematic at best. Has anyone run an experiment, where one LLM was trained on a dataset without such material? Informally - yes, I agree that all the "junk" input for our LLMs looks very problematic.