this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

34906 readers
386 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TL;DR: LLMs are just mimicking natural language and conversation. Fact checking and healthy skepticism is not part of their model. For example they can be easily tricked into advocating conspiracy theories, like a fake moon landing. Google Bard is even stating arithmetic falsehoods like 5*6 != 30

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The only use so far with any value (moral or factual) seems to be insane entertainment. I can't stop having a chuckle of the Harry Squatter videos and interactions people have with Neuro-sama.

I think trying to use this for anything even remotely factual is just asking for a paddlin'.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

not sure what you're saying here. are you claiming it can't do any sort of reasoning or open-ended problem solving?

i think we're fairly confident now that they can do structured reasoning to some degree. it is not flawless in that it might not give you real or accurate information every time, but we are also figuring out the contexts behind that. as for spreading misinformation, anything intentional prompted to be incorrect is irrelevant to gauging intelligence. unintentional results don't necessarily mean it's unintelligent either.

there's a really good document on this aspect as well.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post

there are a lot of ethical and technical aspects of LLMs that are severely underdeveloped, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. i don't think any of that would suggest that it's reasonable to disregard the absurd pace of development this past decade, and last few years especially. good thing we have a sudden surge of attention towards developing these things.