Stop asking a language model for accurate information and problem solved. ChatGPT is not supposed to be a knowledge bank, that’s purely incidental for the amount of training data.
ChatGPT provides false information about people, and OpenAI can’t correct it
Submitted 6 months ago by alb_004@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
https://noyb.eu/en/chatgpt-provides-false-information-about-people-and-openai-cant-correct-it
Comments
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Stop asking a language model for accurate information and problem solved
Hey chatgpt, when did jol’s wife get pregnant and by whom?
/s
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
Unless they used that bitche’s only fans in the training data, it will definitely not know that.
filister@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Just ask ChatGPT what it thinks for some non-existing product and it will start hallucinating.
This is a known issue of LLMs and DL in general as their reasoning is a black box for scientists.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
It’s not that their reasoning is a black box. It’s that they do not have reasoning! They just guess what the next word in the sentence is likely to be.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 6 months ago
I mean it’s a bit more complicated than that, but at its core, yes, this is correct. Highly recommend this video.
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 6 months ago
And by the time the system can actually research the facts, the internet is so full of LLM generated nonsense neither human or AI can verify the data.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Asking chatgpt for information is like asking for accurate reports from bards and minstrels. Sure, sometimes it fits, but most of it is random stuff stitched together to sound good.
RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There we go. Now that people have calmed their proverbial tits about these thinking machines, we can start talking maturely about the strengths and limitation of the LLM implementations and find their niche in our tools arsenal.
warmaster@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I can’t wait until the AI bubble finally pops.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
I’ve got bad news for you though: there will be another new bubble almost immediately. There’s a whole industry based around tech hype cycles and they are constantly throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Eventually something will when there’s space for it. It will be just as insufferable as LLMs are, and crypto was before that, and… I actually forget what was before that. Uber? You won’t be able to escape it, because it will dominate the attention economy.
RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There’s definitely a niche for it, more so than for other fruitless hypes like blockchain or IoT. We really need to be able to tasks which need autonomous decisions of simple to average complexity to machines. We can’t continuously scale up the population to handle those. But LLMs aren’t the answer to that, unfortunately. They’re just party tricks if the current limitations cannot be overcome.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No surprise, and this is going to happen to everybody who uses neural net models for production. You just don’t know where your data is, and therefore it is unbelievably hard to change data.
So, if you have legal obligations to know it, or to delete some data, then you are deep in the mud.
erv_za@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think of ChatGPT as a “text generator”, similar to how Dall-E is an “image generator”.
If I were openai, I would post a fictitious person disclaimer at the bottom of the page and hold the user responsible for what the model does. Nobody holds Adobe responsible when someone uses Photoshop.NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I would post a fictitious person disclaimer
… or you could read the GDPR and learn that such excuses are void.
yamanii@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The technology has to follow the legal requirements, not the other way around.
That should be obvious to everyone that’s not an evangelist.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
If scientists made AI, then it wouldn’t be an issue for AI to say “I don’t know”.
But capitalists are making it, and the last thing you want is it to tell an investor “I don’t know”. So you tell it to make up bullshit instead, and hope the investor believes it.
It’s a terrible fucking way to go about things, but this is America…
expr@programming.dev 6 months ago
It’s got nothing to do with capitalism. It’s fundamentally a matter of people using it for things it’s not actually good at, because ultimately it’s just statistics. The words generated are based on a probability distribution derived from its (huge) training dataset. It has no understanding or knowledge. It’s mimicry.
It’s why it’s incredibly stupid to try using it for the things people are trying to use it for, like as a source of information. It’s a model of language, yet people act like it has actual insight or understanding.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Imagine searching your computer for a PDF named “W2.2026”…
Would you rather the computer tell you it’s not in the database? Or would you prefer a random PDF displayed with the title “W2.2026”?
This isn’t a new problem.
You’re getting hung up on “know” instead “has relevant information in it’s database and can access it”.
But besides all that and the other things you got wrong:
It’s still about capitalism for the reasons I just said
hatedbad@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
you’re so close, just why exactly do you think people are using it for these things it’s not meant for?
because every company, every CEO, every VP, is pushing every sector of their companies to adopt AI no matter what.
most actual people understand the limitations you list, but it’s the capitalists at the table that are making AI show up where it’s not wanted
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
Uh, I understand the sentiment, but the model doesn’t know anything. And it’s legit really hard to differentiate between factual things and random bullshit it made up.
DudeDudenson@lemmings.world 6 months ago
Was gonna say, the AI doesn’t make up or admit bullshit, its just a very advanced a prediction algorithm. It responds with what the combination of words that is most likely the expected answer.
Wether that is accurate or not is part of training it but you’ll never get 100% accuracy to any query
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
Yeah, no one can make it say “I don’t know” because it is not really AI. Business bros decided to call it that and everyone smiled and nodded. LLMs are 1 small component (maybe) of AI. Maybe 1/80th of a true AI or AGI.
Honestly the most impressive part of LLMs is the tokenizer that breaks down the request, not the predictive text button masher that comes up with the response.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It “knows” as in it has access to the information and the ability to provide the right info for the right context.
Any part of that process the AI can just “bullshit” and fills in the gaps with random stuff.
Which is what you want when it’s “learning”. You want it to try so it’s attempt can be rated, and the relevant info added to its “knowledge”.
But when consumers are using it, you want it to say “I can’t answer that”. But consumers are usually stupid and will buy/use the one that says “I can’t answer that” the least.
Which is why AI should tell end users “I don’t know” more often.
DarkThoughts@fedia.io 6 months ago
This has nothing to do with scientists vs capitalists and everything with the fact that this is not actually "AI". Someone called it T9 (word prediction) on steroids and I find that much more fitting with how those LLMs work. It just mimics the way humans talk, but it doesn't actually converse intelligently or actually understands context - it just looks like it does, but only if you take it at face value and don't look deeper into it.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
howrar@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.
set_secret@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Just put this into GPT 4.
What’s your view of the fizbang Raspberry blasters?
Gpt ‘I’m not familiar with “fizbang Raspberry blasters.” Could you provide more details or clarify what they are?’
It’s a drink making machine from china
Gpt ‘I don’t have any specific information on the “fizbang Raspberry blasters” drink making machine. If it’s a new or niche product, details might be limited online.’
So, in this instance is didn’t hallucinate, i tried a few more made up things and it’s consistent in saying it doesn’t know of these.
Explanations?
k110111@feddit.de 6 months ago
Chatgpt and gpt4 are two different things. Gpt4 is like the engine and chatgpt is like a car. In early version they were pretty much the same thing, but nowadays they have implemented so much in chatgpt.
On top of that chatgpt4 is constantly trained for these scenarios, it is no longer a base model.
Strobelt@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It is made by scientists. The problem is that said scientists are paid by investors mostly, or by grants that come from investors.