Comment

Comment on We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

It’s only easier to verify a solution than come up with a solution when you can trust and understand the algorithms that are developing the solution. Simulation software for thermodynamics is magnitudes faster than hand calculations, but you know what the software is doing. The creators of the software aren’t saying “we don’t actually know how it works”.

In the case of an LLM, I have to verify everything with no trust whatsoever. And that takes longer than just doing it myself. Especially because an LLM is writing something for me, it isn’t doing complex math.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Danksy@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If a solution is correct then a solution is correct. If a correct solution was generated randomly that doesn’t make it less correct. It just means that you may not always get correct solutions, which is why they are checked after.

source
kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Except when you’re doing calculations, a calculator can run through an equation substituting the given answers and see that the values match… Which is my point of calculators not being a good example. And the case of a quantum computer wasn’t addressed.

I agree that LLMs have many issues, are being used for bad purposes, are overhyped, and we’ve yet to see if the issues are solvable - but I think the analogy is twisting the truth, and I think the current state of LLMs being bad is not a license to make disingenuous comparisons.

source
- assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Its left to be seen in the future then
  
  source