> All these LLMs make up too much stuff, I don't see how that can be fixed.
All these humans make up too much stuff, I don't see how that can be fixed.
All these humans make up too much stuff, I don't see how that can be fixed.
The biggest issue is how confidently wrong GPT enjoys being. You can press GPT in either right or wrong direction and it will concede with minimal effort, which is also an issue. It’s just really bad russian roulette nerdspining until someone gets tired.
How do you think leadership at OpenAI would respond to that?
2. While I agree that it's a stretch to call ChatGPT agentic, it's nonetheless "motivated" in the sense that it's learned based on an objective function, which we can model as a causal factor behind its behavior, which might improve our understanding of that behavior. I think it's relatively intuitive and not deeply incorrect to say that that a learned objective of generating plausible prose can be a causal factor which has led to a tendency to generate prose which often deceives people, and I see little value in getting nitpicky about agentic assumptions in colloquial language when a vast swath of the lexicon and grammar of human languages writ large does so essentially by default. "The rain got me wet!" doesn't assume that the rain has agency
> deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especially for personal gain.
Emphasis on the personal gain part. It seems like you have a different definition.
There's no point in arguing about definitions, but I'm a big believer in that if you can identify a difference in the definitions people use early into a conversation, you can settle the argument at that.
# Post 1
> The problems of epistemology and informational quality control are complicated, but humanity has developed a decent amount of social and procedural technology to do these, some of which has defined the organization of various institutions.
Very fluffy, creating very uncertain parsing for reader.
Should cut down, then could add specificity:
ex. "Dealing with misinformation is complicated. But we have things like dictionaries and the internet, there's even specialization in fact-checking, like Snopes.com"
(I assume the specifics I added aren't what you meant, just wanted to give an example)
> The mere presence of LLMs doesn't fundamentally change how we should calibrate our beliefs or verify information. However, the mythology/marketing that LLMs are "outperforming humans"
They do, or are clearly at par, at many tasks.
Where is the quote from?
Is bringing this up relevant to the discussion?
Would us quibbling over that be relevant to this discussion?
> combined with the fact that the most popular ones are black boxes to the overwhelming majority of their users means that a lot of people aren't applying those tools to their outputs.
Are there unpopular ones aren't black boxes?
What tools? (this may just indicate the benefit of a clearer intro)
> As a technology, they're much more useful if you treat them with what is roughly the appropriate level of skepticism for a human stranger you're talking to on the street
This is a sort of obvious conclusion compared to the complicated language leading into it, and doesn't add to the posts before it. Is there a stronger claim here?
# Post 2
> I wonder what ChatGPT would have to say if I ran this text through with a specialized prompt.
Why do you wonder that?
What does "specialized" mean in this context?
My guess is there's a prompt you have in mind, which then would clarify A) what you're wondering about B) what you meant by specialized prompt. But a prompt is a question, so it may be better to just ask the question?
> Your choice of words is interesting, almost like you are optimizing for persuasion,
What language optimizes for persuasion? I'm guessing the fluffy advanced verbiage indicates that?
Does this boil down to "Your word choice creates persuasive writing"?
> but simultaneously, I get a strong vibe of intention of optimizing for truth.
Is there a distinction here? What would "optimizing for truth" vs. "optimizing for persuasion" look like?
Do people usually write not-truthful things, to the point it's worth noting that when you think people are writing with the intention of truth?
Like I said, I'm very interested!
Maybe it doesn't mean anything other than what it says on the tin? You think people should treat an LLM like a stranger making claims? Makes sense!
It's just unclear what a lot of it means and the word choice makes it seem like there's something grander going on, coughs as our compatriots in this intricately weaved thread on the international network known as the world wide web have also explicated, and imparted via the written word, as their scrivening also remarks on the lexicographical phenomenae. coughs
My only other guess is you are doing some form of performance art to teach us a broader lesson?
There's something very "off" here, and I'm not the only to note it. Like, my instinct is it's iterated writing using an LLM asked to make it more graduate-school level.
I can't tell you exactly what you find "off" about my prose, because while you have advocated precision your objection is impossibly vague. I talk funny. Okay. Cool. Thanks.
Anyway, most benchmarks are garbage, and even if we take the validity of these benchmarks for granted, these AI companies don't release their datasets or even weights, so we have no idea what's out of distribution. To be clear, this means the claims can't be verified even by the standards of ML benchmarks, and thus should be taken as marketing, because companies lying about their tech has both a clearly defined motivation and a constant stream of unrelenting precedent
You mean on this planet?
If not, what do you think of that idea? Does something not seem....weird?
Particularly:
> Also, in general it seems unlikely humans function as optimizers natively, because optimization tends to require drastically narrowing and quantifying your objectives. I would guess that if they're describable and consistent, most human utility functions look more like noisy prioritized sets of satisfaction criteria than the kind of objectives we can train a neural network against
Considering this, what do you think us humans are actually up to, here on HN and in general? It seems clear that we are up to something, but what might it be?
In general? Slowly dying mostly. Talking. Eating. Fucking. Staring at microbes under a microscope. Feeding cats. Planting trees. Doing cartwheels. Really depends on the human
> Talking.
Have you ever noticed any talking that ~"projects seriousness &/or authority about important matters" around here?
Yes, absolutely. I view this as one of the criteria by which I assess emotional maturity, and despite societal pressures to never do so, many manage to, even though most don't
I'm not a sociologist, but I think the degree to which people can't turn it off maps fairly well onto the "low-high trust society" continuum, with lower trust implying less willingness or even sometimes ability to stop trying to do this on average, though of course variation will exist within societies as well
I have this intuition because I think the question of whether to present vulnerability and openness versus authority and strength is essentially shaped like a prisoner's dilemma, with all that that implies
We're not fully aligned here....I'm thinking more like: stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly.
I think we're not talking about exactly the same thing though, which I'd say is my fault. I would like to modify this:
> stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly.
...to this (only change is what I appended to the end):
> stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly, without stopping cognition altogether (such as during "no mind" meditation or "ego death" using psychedelics). Think more like a highly optimized piece of engineering, where we have ~full (comparable to standard engineering or programming) access to the code, stack, state, etc.
1. I explicitly acknowledged I misspoke and wanted to clarify: "I think we're not talking about exactly the same thing though, which I'd say is my fault. I would like to modify this:"
2. What is circuitous about my question? Is my refined question non-valid?
> At this point I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to get at
I encourage you to interpret my question literally, or ask for clarification.
> ...and it's hard not to form the impression that you're being deliberately obtuse here...
obtuse: ": lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid. He is too obtuse to take a hint. b. : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression".
I'd like to see you make the case for that accusation, considering the text of our conversation is persisted above.
Rhetoric is popular, and it will work on most people here, but it will not work on me. I will simply call it out explicitly, and then observe what technique you try next. You do realize that you people can be observed, and studied, don't you?
> ...though it also could just be the brainrot that comes of overabstraction
Perhaps. Alternatively, my question could be valid, challenging to your beliefs (which I suspect are perceived as knowledge), and you lack the self-confidence to defend those beliefs.
You are welcome to:
1. genuinely address my words
2. engage in more rhetoric
3. stay silent (which may be interpreted as you not seeing this message, regardless of whether that is true)
4. something else of your choosing
When it comes to technical details, current LLM's have a bias towards sycophancy and bullshitting that humans only show when especially desperate to impress or totally fearful.
Humans make mistakes too, but the distribution of those mistakes is wildly different and generally much easier to calibrate for and work around.
Reddit, while it has some niche communities with tribal info and knowledge, is FULL of spam, bots, companies masquerading as users, etc etc etc. If people are truly relying on reddit as a source of truth (which OpenAI is now being influenced by), then the world is just going to be amplify all the spam that already exists
I hope LLMs will offer a "-reddit" model to switch to when needed.
Why would I want to ask your average person a physics question? Of course, their answer will probably be wrong and partly made up. Why should that be the bar?
I want it to answer at the level of a physics expert. And a physics expert is far less likely to make basic mistakes.
We have human institutions dedicated at least nominally to finding and publishing truth (I hate having to qualify this, but Hacker News is so cynical and post-modernist at this point that I don't know what else to do). These include, for instance, court systems. These include a notion of evidentiary standards. Eyewitnesses are treated as more reliable than hearsay. Written or taped recordings are more reliable than both. Multiple witnesses who agree are more reliable than one. Another example is science. Science utilizes peer review, along with its own notion of hierarchy of evidence, similar to but separate from the court's. Interventional trials are better evidence than observational studies. Randomization and statistical testing is used to try and tease out effects from noise. Results that replicate are more reliable than a single study. Journalism is yet another example. This is probably the arena in which Hacker News is most cynical and will declare all of it is useless trash, but nonetheless reputable news organizations do have methods they use to try and be correct more often than they are not. They employ their own fact checkers. They seek out multiple expert sources. They send journalists directly to a scene to bear witness themselves to events as they unfold.
You're free to think this isn't sufficient, but this is how we deal with humans making up stuff and it's gotten us modern civilization at least, full of warts but also full of wonders, seemingly because we're actually right about a lot of stuff.
At some point, something analogous will presumably be the answer for how LLMs deal with this, too. The training will have to be changed to make the system aware of quality of evidence. Place greater trust in direct sensor output versus reading something online. Place greater trust in what you read from a reputable academic journal versus a Tweet. Etc. As it stands now, unlike human learners, the objective function of an LLM is just to produce a string in which each piece is in some reasonably high-density region of the probability distribution of possible next pieces as observed from historical recorded text. Luckily, producing strings in this way happens to generate a whole lot of true statements, but it does not have truth as an explicit goal and, until it does, we shouldn't forget that. Treat it with the treatment it deserves, as if some human savant with perfect recall had never left a dark room to experience the outside world, but had read everything ever written, unfortunately without any understanding of the difference between reading a textbook and reading 4chan.