3 ms·

With stuff that a 4-9 year old is going to be learning? Color me skeptical.

TonyAlicea10 4mo ago
You’re applying human cognition expectations to an LLM. Just because the topic is simple to a human doesn’t mean it improves the likelihood the LLM will behave better. It’s all inference to the machine.
- senordevnyc 4mo ago
  I’m applying my experience with these models, as well as common sense. What are you applying? Would you even admit LLMs are useful for this if they’re perfect at topics that kids would be learning? Or are your objections actually ideological rather than pragmatic?
  - TonyAlicea10 4mo ago
    I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work. And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic. And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them. That is a problem both ideologically and pragmatically. You have to think long-term. On a side note: ask an LLM to write a story at a 4-9 year old level. Work with it for awhile doing iterations and it will hallucinate a previous detail or change a character name as context rots. Lots of other examples of "basic" topics that still produce hallucinations.
    - senordevnyc 4mo ago
      The common sense part is not holding LLMs to a standard of absolute perfection that literally no other medium, or humans, can reach. You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.
      - TonyAlicea10 4mo ago
        You were skeptical that LLMs would hallucinate on topics for children and you said it was common sense. But now you’re saying the common sense is that they will hallucinate.
        senordevnyc 4mo ago
        Man, it must be exhausting to have reading comprehension this bad. Let’s try again: your claim is that LLMs “make up stuff all the time”, so they can’t be used to educate children. I’m saying that modern SOTA models do not make up stuff all the time as it pertains to the topics a child of 4-9 would learn. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect or will never make mistakes, but there’s zero reason to think such issues would be widespread. And common sense would tell you that perfection is not required for LLMS to be a net positive in education. I’m sure you’ll have another vapid rejoinder, but this has been boring for awhile and you seem to be enjoying being obtuse, so I’m moving on.
UncleMeat 4mo ago
Teaching children is not just about delivering facts to them. The challenge when teaching children is not "do you know the topics that you are teaching them." They challenge is in the pedagogical methods used to get them to learn.

You’re applying human cognition expectations to an LLM. Just because the topic is simple to a human doesn’t mean it improves the likelihood the LLM will behave better. It’s all inference to the machine.

senordevnyc 4mo ago
I’m applying my experience with these models, as well as common sense. What are you applying? Would you even admit LLMs are useful for this if they’re perfect at topics that kids would be learning? Or are your objections actually ideological rather than pragmatic?
- TonyAlicea10 4mo ago
  I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work. And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic. And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them. That is a problem both ideologically and pragmatically. You have to think long-term. On a side note: ask an LLM to write a story at a 4-9 year old level. Work with it for awhile doing iterations and it will hallucinate a previous detail or change a character name as context rots. Lots of other examples of "basic" topics that still produce hallucinations.
  - senordevnyc 4mo ago
    The common sense part is not holding LLMs to a standard of absolute perfection that literally no other medium, or humans, can reach. You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.
    - TonyAlicea10 4mo ago
      You were skeptical that LLMs would hallucinate on topics for children and you said it was common sense. But now you’re saying the common sense is that they will hallucinate.
      - senordevnyc 4mo ago
        Man, it must be exhausting to have reading comprehension this bad. Let’s try again: your claim is that LLMs “make up stuff all the time”, so they can’t be used to educate children. I’m saying that modern SOTA models do not make up stuff all the time as it pertains to the topics a child of 4-9 would learn. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect or will never make mistakes, but there’s zero reason to think such issues would be widespread. And common sense would tell you that perfection is not required for LLMS to be a net positive in education. I’m sure you’ll have another vapid rejoinder, but this has been boring for awhile and you seem to be enjoying being obtuse, so I’m moving on.

UncleMeat 4mo ago

Teaching children is not just about delivering facts to them. The challenge when teaching children is not "do you know the topics that you are teaching them." They challenge is in the pedagogical methods used to get them to learn.