2 ms·

Can a model not just ignor all things that have no counter-argument by default? Like - if there are not flat earthers, widly debunked, drop the idea of a spheri

Can a model not just ignor all things that have no counter-argument by default? Like - if there are not flat earthers, widly debunked, drop the idea of a spherical earth? It only exists if it was fought over?

saidnooneever 7mo ago
you would just game it the same way then, and how would it know who won an internet argument? how can it prove who is telling the truth and whos... hallucinating?
linzhangrun 7mo ago
[flagged]
- 21asdffdsa12 7mo ago
  But then mono-opinion- aka certainty - is actually peak uncertainty? Could that number of occurrence be baked into as a sort of detrimental weight?
  - simmerup 7mo ago
    We need to give the LLMs robot bodies so they can practise medicine and see the illnesses that do and don’t exist first hand
  - baobun 7mo ago
    You're grasping for a reliable unsupervised truth machine. That's a fundamentally intractable problem until you limit it down to a wolframalpha clone. And not even that by LLMs.
sublinear 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
pjc50 7mo ago
> drop the idea of a spherical earth I think I see a problem here.
rcxdude 7mo ago
Even if you could do this rigorously (not at all obvious with how LLMs work), it's not a reliable metric: you can easily fabricate debate as well, and in this case the main issue was essentially skimming the surface of the reports and not looking any deeper to see the obvious red flags that it was an april-fools-level fake (which obviously even a person can fall for, but LLMs are being given a far greater level of trust for some reason)
vrighter 7mo ago
what if it's something correct that doesn't have a counterargument, like "photons with a 450nm wavelength are perceived as red by the average human eye" And how would it know if a counterargument exists anyway, and if it actually does make sense?

saidnooneever 7mo ago

you would just game it the same way then, and how would it know who won an internet argument? how can it prove who is telling the truth and whos... hallucinating?

linzhangrun 7mo ago

[flagged]

21asdffdsa12 7mo ago
But then mono-opinion- aka certainty - is actually peak uncertainty? Could that number of occurrence be baked into as a sort of detrimental weight?
- simmerup 7mo ago
  We need to give the LLMs robot bodies so they can practise medicine and see the illnesses that do and don’t exist first hand
- baobun 7mo ago
  You're grasping for a reliable unsupervised truth machine. That's a fundamentally intractable problem until you limit it down to a wolframalpha clone. And not even that by LLMs.

sublinear 7mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

pjc50 7mo ago

> drop the idea of a spherical earth I think I see a problem here.

rcxdude 7mo ago

Even if you could do this rigorously (not at all obvious with how LLMs work), it's not a reliable metric: you can easily fabricate debate as well, and in this case the main issue was essentially skimming the surface of the reports and not looking any deeper to see the obvious red flags that it was an april-fools-level fake (which obviously even a person can fall for, but LLMs are being given a far greater level of trust for some reason)

vrighter 7mo ago

what if it's something correct that doesn't have a counterargument, like "photons with a 450nm wavelength are perceived as red by the average human eye" And how would it know if a counterargument exists anyway, and if it actually does make sense?