this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
116 points (92.0% liked)

Technology

58012 readers
2862 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tech experts are starting to doubt that ChatGPT and A.I. ‘hallucinations’ will ever go away: ‘This isn’t fixable’::Experts are starting to doubt it, and even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is a bit stumped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I was excited for the recent advancements in AI, but seems the area has hit another wall. Seems it is best to be used for automating very simple tasks, or at best used as a guiding tool for professionals (ie, medicine, SWE, …)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hallucinations is common for humans as well. It's just people who believe they know stuff they really don't know.

We have alternative safeguards in place. It's true however that current llm generation has its limitations

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just common. If you look at kids, hallucinations come first in their development.

Later, they learn to filter what is real and what is not real. And as adults, we have weird thoughts that we suppress so quickly that we hardly remember them.

And for those with less developed filters, they have more difficulty to distinguish fact from fiction.

Generative AI is good at generating. What needs to be improved is the filtering aspect of AI.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hell, just look at various public personalities - especially those with extreme views. Most of what some of them say they have "hallucinated". Far more so than what GPT chat is doing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sure, but these things exists as fancy story tellers. They understand language patterns well enough to write convincing language, but they don't understand what they're saying at all.

The metaphorical human equivalent would be having someone write a song in a foreign language they barely understand. You can get something that sure sounds convincing, sounds good even, but to someone who actually speaks Spanish it's nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

GPT can write and edit code that works. It simply can't be true that it's solely doing language patterns with no semantic understanding.

To fix your analogy: the Spanish speaker will happily sing along. They may notice the occasional odd turn of phrase, but the song as a whole is perfectly understandable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because it can look up code for this specific problem in its enormous training data? It doesnt need to understand the concepts behind it as long as the problem is specific enough to have been solved already.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I can tell GPT to do a specific thing in a given context and it will do so intelligently. I can then provide additional context that implicitly changes the requirements and GPT will pick up on that and make the specific changes needed.

It can do this even if I'm trying to solve a novel problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn't have the ability to just look up anything from its training data, that stuff is encoded in its parameters. Still, the input has to be encoded in a way that causes the correct "chain reaction" of excited/not excited neurons.

Beyond that, it's not just a carbon copy from what was in the training either because you can tell it what variable names to use, which order to do things in, change some details, etc. If it was simply a lookup that wouldn't be possible. The training made it able to generalize what it learned to some extent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, but it doesnt do so because it understands what a variable is, it does so because it has statistics as to where variables belong most likely.

In a way it is like the guy that won the french scrabble championship without speaking a single word of french, by learning the words in the dictionary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If that were true, it shouldn't hallucinate about anything that was in its training data. LLMs don't work that way. There was a recent post with a nice simple description of how they work, but I'm not finding it. If you're interested, there's plenty of videos and articles describing how they work.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Sure it can, "print hello world in C++"

#include 

int main() {
  std::cout << "hello world\n";
  return 0;
}

"print d ft just rd go t in C++"

#include 

int main() {
  std::cout << "d ft just rd go t\n";
  return 0;
}

The latter is a "novel program" it's never seen before, but it's possible because it's seen a pattern of "print X" and the X goes over here. That doesn't mean it understands what it just did, it's just got millions (?) of patterns it's been trained on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calculators don't understand maths, but they are good at it.

LLMs speak many languages correctly, they don't know the referents, the don't understand concepts, but they know how to correctly associate them.

What they write can be wrong sometimes, but it absolutely makes sense most of the time.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but it absolutely makes sense most of the time

I'd contest that, that shouldn't be taken for granted. I've tried several questions in these things, and rarely do I find an answer entirely satisfactory (though it normally sounds convincing/is grammatically correct).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This is the reply to your message by our common friend:

I understand your perspective and appreciate the feedback. My primary goal is to provide accurate and grammatically correct information. I'm constantly evolving, and your input helps in improving the quality of responses. Thank you for sharing your experience. - GPT-4

I'd say it does make sense

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

https://youtu.be/-VsmF9m_Nt8

Song written by an Italian intended to sound like american accented english but its intentionally gibberish.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/wfYbgdo8e-8

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Humans can recognize and account for their own hallucinations. LLMs can't and never will.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It's pretty ironic that you say they "never will" in this context.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Well to be honest it is the best way, I mean, I'm pretty sure their purpose was a tool to aid people, and not to replace us... Right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah I fully expect to see genre specific LLMs that have a subscription fee attatched squarely aimed at hobbies and industries.

When I finally find my new project car I would absolutely pay for a subscription to an LLM that has read every service manual and can explain to me in plain english what precise steps the job involves and can also answer followup questions.