> It’s true that so-called “hallucinations” are an artifact of LLM technology that can never be totally eradicated. But if you think about it, humans make a lot of mistakes as well. A calculator that gives you the correct answer 90% of the time is still an impressive technological achievement!
I know this article is meant to be dissing on LLMs, am I too caught up in the mania that this sounds to me unironically like a positive argument for LLMs?
If you're being serious, my honest answer is yes. But, then, I'm the kind of person who refuses to part with my college texts and graphing calculator because of nostalgia.
No offense is intended with this comment, but genuinely, if you see a calculator that returns incorrect answers 10% of the time as a technological achievement in a world that has had deterministic calculators for the better part of a century, I think it's worth considering that you might be a little caught up.
I think it makes sense to see it positively. If one wants a calculator, we have calculators. The whole point is reaching things that deterministic calculations either can't or don't in a reasonable timeframe.
I don't think this point is well stated. We have things like ECC to help with math being imperfect so that feels solvable. The problem with LLMs is much more subtle. They induce cognitive errors in humans. I'm doing it right now I'm saying "them" like they have individual identities, but they do not.
If you know they're just mirrors, then you know that looking in the mirror isn't the same as exploring the world.
It turns out, though, that many people can be trapped in a hall of mirrors. They will happily buy a condom for their brain.
I know this article is meant to be dissing on LLMs, am I too caught up in the mania that this sounds to me unironically like a positive argument for LLMs?
That would be unheard of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
If you know they're just mirrors, then you know that looking in the mirror isn't the same as exploring the world.
It turns out, though, that many people can be trapped in a hall of mirrors. They will happily buy a condom for their brain.
Please refute this argument: how can you expect 100% accuracy when your input is natural language which is fuzzy by definition?
can someone closer to pretraining elaborate?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ai-companies-destroying-ra...
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Panama
Replace "nuclear explosion" with "AI produced works"