Early wikipedia was flawed but c'mon, hoping that a probabilistic text generator happens to string together a series of correct statements is a fundamentally unserious way to gather information
If I wanted to google something (or bing, whatever), I would have done that. A major draw for me has been that chatgpt was providing a much better experience than search engines.
Now it sometimes feels like a fancy lmgtfy.
We're really speed running development cycles nowadays aren't we?
When did those tools start outputting truth?
It makes no sense to say something can't work when it clearly and obviously does. Most humans would do worse.
Anecdotes are so worthless, in fact, here's mine-- I asked Azure's GPT for Powershell help. After seven regens in which it tried to include a different fictional library, I gave up. So which of us had the "real" LLM experience?
These things are storytellers, not teachers. Sometimes it gets it right. Maybe most of the time. It's convincing enough that unless you're an expert, you'll never guess when it's wrong, and the lies are bespoke for every user so there's never going to be an errata page to document its failures. It will always appear reliable.
I really liked how a recent paper from DeepMind put it - LLMs are just role-playing: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16367. This explains so much.
Are you claiming you've always scored 100% on every multiple choice test because you've been "fed the answers"?
What kind of dumb response is that?
In giving it answers, you gave it context to infer the right one. You narrowed the search domain. It does have the same effect on humans, which is why multiple choice tests are easier than others-- when you show up to take the test wholly unprepared, you're looking for the most plausible answers based on the context you're given. Fortune tellers and Clever Hans work the same through interactive reactions.
You take to insult but I'll challenge you again to run your experiment and provide only wrong answers for all of the questions. Bullshit your fortune teller and see what answers it comes back with in the impossible situation you create.
I don't have any evidence of how humans perform on multiple choice tests where all the answers are incorrect and they are not given that option. Do you? Or are you just assuming that they would challenge the context?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHkTs-Ipfg
Of all the 300,000 students who took the test, only three reported a problem with the question. So at least for this case, 1/100,000 were able to identify the problem with the question and report it.