• 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.