3 ms·
Human news isn't a good comparison because this is second order -- LMMs are downstream of human news. It's a game of stochastic telephone. All the human error i
by AyyEye 1y ago
Human news isn't a good comparison because this is second order -- LMMs are downstream of human news. It's a game of stochastic telephone. All the human error is carried through with additional hallucinations on top.
- falcor84 1y agoBut the issue is that the vast majority of "human news" is second order (at best), essentially paraphrasing releases by news agencies like Reuters or Associated Press, or scientific articles, and typically doing a horrible job at it. Regarding scientific reporting, there's as usual a relevant xkcd ("New Study") [0], and in this case even better, there's a fabulous one from PhD Comics ("Science News Cycle") [1]. [0] https://xkcd.com/1295/ https://xkcd.com/1295/ [1] https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
- Vetch 1y agoThen the point still stands, this makes things even worse given that it's adding its own hallucinations on top, instead of simply relaying the content or idealistically, identifying issues in the reporting.
- dgfitz 1y agoYou understand that an LLM can only poorly regurgitate whatever it’s fed right? An LLM will _always_ be less useful than a primary/secondary source, because they can’t fucking think.
- falcor84 1y agoRegardless of how you define "think", you still need to get a baseline of whether human reporters do that effectively.