3 ms·
> [...] are fiction machines. All they can do is hallucinate, and sometimes the hallucinations are useful. That alone rules them out, categorically, from any cr
by ajross 9mo ago
> [...] are fiction machines. All they can do is hallucinate, and sometimes the hallucinations are useful. That alone rules them out, categorically, from any critical control loop.
True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people".
Saying that the tools make mistakes is correct. Saying that (like people) they can never be trained and deployed such that the mistakes are tolerable is an awfully tall order.
History is paved with people who got steamrollered by technology they didn't think would ever work. On a practical level AI seems very median in that sense. It's notable only because it's... kinda creepy, I guess.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- fao_ 9mo ago> Saying that (like people) they can never be trained and deployed such that the mistakes are tolerable is an awfully tall order. It is, though. We have numerous studies on why hallucinations are central to the architecture, and numerous case studies by companies who have tried putting them in control loops! We have about 4 years of examples of bad things happening because the trigger was given to an LLM.
- ajross 9mo ago> We have numerous studies on why hallucinations are central to the architecture, And we have tens of thousands of years of shared experience of "People Were Wrong and Fucked Shit Up". What's your point? Again, my point isn't that LLMs are infallible; it's that they only need to be better than their competition, and their competition sucks.
- TheOtherHobbes 9mo agoIt's a fine line. Humans don't always fuck shit up. But human systems that don't fuck shit up are short-lived, rare, and fragile, and they've only become a potential - not a reality - in the last century or so. The rest of history is mostly just endless horrors, with occasional tentative moments of useful insight.
- solid_fuel 9mo ago> True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people". Incorrect. People are capable of learning by observation, introspection, and reasoning. LLMs can only be trained by rote example. Hallucinations are, in fact, an unavoidable property of the technology - something which is not true for people. [0] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817
- CamperBob2 9mo agoWhat you (and the authors) call "hallucination," other people call "imagination." Also, you don't know very many people, including yourself, if you think that confabulation and self-deception aren't integral parts of our core psychological makeup. LLMs work so well because they inherit not just our logical thinking patterns, but our faults and fallacies.
- blibble 9mo agowhat I call it is "buggy garbage" it's not a person, it doesn't hallucinate or have imagination it's simply unreliable software, riddled with bugs
- CamperBob2 9mo ago(Shrug) Perhaps other sites beckon.
- TheOtherHobbes 9mo agoThe suggestion that hallucinations are avoidable in humans is quite a bold claim.