Accepting concepts like “right” and “wrong” gives those tools way too much credit, basically following the AI narrative of the corporations behind them. They can only be used about the output but not the tool itself.
To be precise:
LLMs can’t be right or wrong because the way they work has no link to any reality - it’s stochastics, not evaluation.
I also don’t like the term halluzination for the same reason. It’s simply a too high temperature setting jumping into a closeby but unrelated vector set.
Why this is an important distinction: Arguing that an LLM is wrong is arguing on the ground of ChatGPT and the likes: It’s then a “oh but wen make them better!” And their marketing departments overjoy.
To take your calculator analogy: like these tools do have floating point errors which are inherent to those tools wrong outputs are a dore part of LLMs.
We can minimize that but then they automatically use part of their function. This limitation is way stronger on LLMs than limiting a calculator to 16 digits after the comma though…
Scam. We’re being sold an autocomplete tool as a search engine.
Or fraud, since some of the same companies destroyed the functionality of their search engines in order to make the autocomplete look better in comparison.
That’s my problem: any single word humanizes the tool in my opinion.
Iperhaps something like “stochastic debris” comes close but there’s no chance to counter the common force of pop culture, Corp speak a and humanities talent to see humanoid behavior everywhere but each other. :(
snooggums@piefed.world 7 hours ago
Aka being wrong, but with a fancy name!
When Cletus is wrong because he mixed up a dog and a cat when deacribing their behavior do we call it hallucinating? No.
Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Accepting concepts like “right” and “wrong” gives those tools way too much credit, basically following the AI narrative of the corporations behind them. They can only be used about the output but not the tool itself.
To be precise:
LLMs can’t be right or wrong because the way they work has no link to any reality - it’s stochastics, not evaluation. I also don’t like the term halluzination for the same reason. It’s simply a too high temperature setting jumping into a closeby but unrelated vector set.
Why this is an important distinction: Arguing that an LLM is wrong is arguing on the ground of ChatGPT and the likes: It’s then a “oh but wen make them better!” And their marketing departments overjoy.
To take your calculator analogy: like these tools do have floating point errors which are inherent to those tools wrong outputs are a dore part of LLMs.
We can minimize that but then they automatically use part of their function. This limitation is way stronger on LLMs than limiting a calculator to 16 digits after the comma though…
CubitOom@infosec.pub 7 hours ago
What word would you propose to use instead?
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
Scam. We’re being sold an autocomplete tool as a search engine.
Or fraud, since some of the same companies destroyed the functionality of their search engines in order to make the autocomplete look better in comparison.
Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
That’s my problem: any single word humanizes the tool in my opinion. Iperhaps something like “stochastic debris” comes close but there’s no chance to counter the common force of pop culture, Corp speak a and humanities talent to see humanoid behavior everywhere but each other. :(
bad1080@piefed.social 7 hours ago
if you have a lobby you get special names, look at the pharma industry who coined the term “discontinuation syndrome” for a simple “withdrawal”