The outputs of the nn are sampled using a random process. Probability distribution is decided by the llm, loaded die comes after the llm. No, it’s not solvable.
Comment on A courts reporter wrote about a few trials. Then an AI decided he was actually the culprit.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 days agoIt’s a solveable problem. AI is currently at a stage of development equivalent to a 2-year-old, just with better grammar. Everything it is doing now is mimicry and babbling.
It needs to feed it’s own interactions right back into it’s training data. To become a better and better mimic. Eventually, the mechanism it uses to select the appropriate data to form a response will become more and more sophisticated, and it will hallucinate less and less. Eventually, it’s hallucinations will be seen as “insightful” rather than wild ass guesses.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Good luck being pro AI here. Regardless of the fact that they could just put a post on the prompt that says The writer of this document was not responsible for the act they are just writing about it and it would not frame them as the perpetrator.
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
If you already know the answer you can tell the AI the answer as part of the question and it’ll give you the right answer.
That’s what you sound like.
AI people are as annoying as the Musk crowd.
linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
How helpful of you to tell me what I’m saying, especially when you reframe my argument to support yourself.
That’s not what I said. Why would you even think that’s what I said.
Before you start telling me what I sound like, you should probably try to stop sounding like an impetuous child.
Every other post from you is dude or LMAO. How do you expect anyone to take anything you post seriously?
linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You know what, don’t bother responding back to me I’m just blocking you now, before you decide to drag some more of that tired right wing bullshit that you used to fight with everyone else with, none of your arguments on here are worth anyone even reading so I’m not going to waste my time and responding to anything or reading anything from you ever again.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
the problem isn’t being pro ai. It’s people puling ai supposed ai capabilities out of their asses without having actually looked at a single line of code. This is obvious to anyone who has coded a neural network. Yes even to openai themselves, but if they let you believe that, then the money stops flowing. You simply can’t get an 8-ball to give the correct answer consistently. Because it’s fundamentally random.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
also, what you described has already been studied. Training an llm its own output completely destroys it, not makes it better.
linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
This is incorrect or perhaps updated. Generating new data, using a different AI method to tag that data, and then training on that data is definitely a thing.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
yes it is, and it doesn’t work
linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Alpaca is successfully doing this no?
theterrasque@infosec.pub 2 days ago
Microsoft’s Dolphin and phi models have used this successfully, and there’s some evidence that all newer models use big LLM’s to produce synthetic data (Like when asked, answering it’s ChatGPT or Claude, hinting that at least some of the dataset comes from those models).
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 days ago
It needs to be retrained on the responses it receives from it’s conversation partner. It’s previous output provides context for its partner’s responses.
It recognizes when it is told that it is wrong. It is fed data that certain outputs often invite “you’re wrong” feedback from its partners, and it is instructed to minimize such feedback.