This is the frustrating part of it. The public doesn’t understand what’s actually happening, or what the goal of these large language models is, so because they’re very convincing conversationalists, your average Joe considers them as true AI.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I don’t know how many times we have to keep saying this:
BECAUSE LLMS HAVE NO INTENTION OR ABILITY TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION SO WHEN THEY APPEAR CONFIDENT, THEY ARE BULLSHITTING EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CORRECT.
Even a bullshitter can be correct sometimes, it doesn’t make it suddenly not bullshit.
This isn’t complicated. They don’t think. They have no concept of truth. They just fabricate sentences from previously copied sentences, there is no intention, no thought, no planning, no reflection.
Anyone who expected anything other than this outcome is an idiot who isn’t paying attention.
Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
jaden@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
It’s just weird that we get so much humanlike reasoning from them, anyways. The jury’s still out whether our brains learn in an autoregressive manner like that, too. I’m finding a lot of really cool results in my research by tinkering with the idea that a developing brain might just be constantly trying to guess what’s happening next.
Seems pretty plausible to me that passive learning in humans works similar to next-token prediction in transformers.
sfera@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
You will have to repeat that again and again, because people don’t know what LLMs are. They have been told that we have AIs and don’t understand that what they actually use are digital parrots (minus the intelligence of an actual parrot).