Technology

59374 readers

7033 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

285

Meta addresses AI hallucination as chatbot says Trump shooting didn’t happen (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Meta "programmed it to simply not answer questions," but it did anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

How would you even prove something like that outside of LLMs? What is your point? That you cannot prove anything except "I think therefore I am"?

Either you haven't read my comments or you're intentionally trying to be provocative.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My point is what OPs point was (which you veered away from in order to try to show off that You Are Very Smart): it is literally impossible for a computer system to prove a historical event has happened.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm having a hard time keeping track of all of the threads and replies evolving here. Forgive me. But I assume you mean the followong one?

It is impossible to mathematically determine if something is correct. Literally impossible.

This is simply a wrong statement. You can indeed prove certain properties on these models. That implies of course that you're able to formulate that property fully.

I don't know why the discussion went this far off track. The main point though is that everyone including OP is trying to discredit AI by bringing up things it was never supposed to be good at. By design, it's not good at knowledge retrieval. But everyone is hating it because it's hallucinating fake news. It's beyond me why people argue like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You can indeed prove certain properties on these models.

Okay, how does the model prove the assassination attempt happened? Because that is what OP was talking about.
It was clear from the context that OP was saying "It is impossible to mathematically determine if something [historical] is correct." They omitted one word and instead of using context clues you went into a long unnecessary post on how we prove even numbers are divisible by 2. If you tried Iron Manning their post instead of trying to show off with an "Um Actually...." You wouldn't be getting lost in the replies as we'd be staying on the original topic.

The main point though is that everyone including OP is trying to discredit AI by bringing up things it was never supposed to be good at.

We're missing the context again. It's not people trying to discredit AI. People are trying to discredit companies insisting on using AI for things it is bad at.

It sounds like you actually agree with OP: AI should not be used for this purpose. Instead of saying "I agree, this is a bad use of AI, it should only be used for X, Y, and Z" you felt the need to White Knight for AI. The problem right now isn't AI being attacked, it's companies treating AI like a miracle that can do everything.