• Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Another realization might be that the humans whose output ChatGPT was trained on were probably already 40% wrong about everything. But let’s not think about that either. AI Bad!

      • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’ll bait. Let’s think:

        -there are three humans who are 98% right about what they say, and where they know they might be wrong, they indicate it

        • now there is an llm (fuck capitalization, I hate the ways they are shoved everywhere that much) trained on their output

        • now llm is asked about the topic and computes the answer string

        By definition that answer string can contain all the probably-wrong things without proper indicators (“might”, “under such and such circumstances” etc)

        If you want to say 40% wrong llm means 40% wrong sources, prove me wrong

        • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s more up to you to prove that a hypothetical edge case you dreamed up is more likely than what happens in a normal bell curve. Given the size of typical LLM data this seems futile, but if that’s how you want to spend your time, hey knock yourself out.