I wonder if "no one says no" culture is practically the same thing as instructing LLMs to always hallucinate.
You know, LLM hallucination is a phenomenon where the AI would generate syntactically bulletproof chunks of text that are not grounded in reality. Lots of efforts by frontier LLM labs had been made in past few years to solve this by enabling AIs to refute premises in the prompt.
Ordinary people still need to be instructed to google stuffs. They don't go to a niche de facto non-American social media to be disappointed by its notoriously bad search to then conclude its notoriously dumb AI can be abused as a makeshift search tool. People are simply unable.
Twitter has been doing so much things backwards lately. That's reminiscent of how hallucination hurts whatever you do with AIs.
Hallucination is not something specific to LLM by any means.
Remember when you were a kid, your teacher probably told you "At an exam, leave no question unanswered, even if you don't know what to write. Nobody is penalised for wrong answers, but even total gibberish might sometimes add a half-point to your score".
Yes, but LLMs are hallucination machines by design. What I mean by this is that everything the LLM generates is a hallucination, untethered from truth or reality, since the data is generated purely based on statistics around what word is most likely to come next. This type of algorithm can never model "truth" or "fact."
To the extent that an LLM generates something factual or realistic, it's doing so either accidentally, or because of the various band-aids that the grandparent post describes which will never fully solve the problem.
Gees... it never occurred to me that such an obvious thing needs a proof. I used to think that it's enough to kinda... just go out of one's luxury office at Y-Combinator and try talking to a janitor or a taxi driver...
> Gees... it never occurred to me that such an obvious thing needs a proof.
I didn’t ask for a proof, I asked for a source, and it is not obvious to me. Your claim is that “humans are just as hallucinatory [as LLMs] when speaking about pretty much anything other than their flat or kids.” This is a quite an outlandish claim to make given that LLMs hallucinate literally every single thing they produce; as I said previously they have no concept of “truth,” or “fact.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with this link but posting an image of an anonymous message board with people using ableist slurs is not a great look.
I have spoken to janitors and taxi drivers and had great intellectual conversations with many of them. Are you trying to say that they aren’t as smart on average as a Y Combinator employee? Because I’ve met some pretty stupid YC employees.
> Em... I think it is relevant. In my mental model, an LLM is basically a giant hash table, so memorizing is about 90% of what it does.
You specifically said “memorizing facts,” which an LLM definitely does not do at all.
But as I said, I also disagree with your assertion. Pretty much the entire first several years of a child’s life consists solely of learning through testing reality, and we continue to test reality in other ways as we grow. And to say that 99% of people learn by any single method seems obviously false; we all learn through several different methods, depending on our brains and the particular situation at hand, and a portion of the learning that every person does is via testing reality.
I'll summarize my position in case you're confused:
* You said that humans are just as hallucinatory as LLMs when speaking about anything other than their flat or kids, and I think this is incorrect, because LLMs don't model "facts" at all.
* So even if a human you're conversing with is purely reciting memorized facts back to you and not actually creatively thinking or "testing reality" at all (which, I repeat, is a wild claim), that person would not in any way be hallucinating in the same way an LLM does.
* You then claimed that 99% of people learn by memorizing facts, not by testing reality. I think this is false on its face for multiple reasons, the most obvious one being that humans learn in varied, complex ways, and so it's nonsensical to treat a person as only being able to learn via a single method.
Where did I go wrong? I'm happy to be set straight with facts/sources if I'm incorrect.
Mainstream LLMs are trained on tests that contain vast amounts of falsehood, so even if they did work by memorizing facts, they would be memorizing counter-facts.
Pick any topic in which misinformation is spread by crackpots. (Especially a topic that is not "policed" by the system prompt). Ask questions using terminology, phrases and ideas that the crackpots use, and you will tend to get crackpot answers; the AI will confirm crackpot theories, backd by links to crackpot forum posts.
What we have is a technology that can reproduce sentences that are grammatical with a very high probability, paragraphs that are coherent with a high probability and true with a lower probability if all the input training data is true. Then, true with an even lower probability when the input data contains vast numbers of untrue sentences, as is the case for all the mainstream, cloud-hosted AI public offerings.
LLMs are not (and ever were) expected to produce truth. Just like humans. Most of the time humans have no idea about what they are talking about, they are just repeating patterns. Just like LLMs.
LLMs are doing what they are expected to be doing -- imitating humans, and they are very good at it, because humans are essentially doing the same thing -- imitating other humans. Kids imitate their parents, students imitate their teachers, employers imitate their boss, fans imitate their popstar.
It's hard to even have this conversation, because it's so bloody obvious that it is hard to understand why this even needs an explanation.
Just remember when was the last time you actually read the manual for a program rather than tried to fit your use-case into an example.
Generating original content and understanding anything from the first principles is not just hard, it's prohibitively hard. Nobody learns arithmetic by reading a book on Peano arithmetic, people just imagine putting some apples in a pot, which is the same principle -- analogy/ imitation.
Many people believe in crackpot theories, therefore an LLM has to faithfully imitate them.
You know, LLM hallucination is a phenomenon where the AI would generate syntactically bulletproof chunks of text that are not grounded in reality. Lots of efforts by frontier LLM labs had been made in past few years to solve this by enabling AIs to refute premises in the prompt.
Ordinary people still need to be instructed to google stuffs. They don't go to a niche de facto non-American social media to be disappointed by its notoriously bad search to then conclude its notoriously dumb AI can be abused as a makeshift search tool. People are simply unable.
Twitter has been doing so much things backwards lately. That's reminiscent of how hallucination hurts whatever you do with AIs.