People Twitter

5236 readers

1696 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

893

Why is no one talking about how unproductive it is to have verify every "hallucination" ChatGPT gives you? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by phoneymouse@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

to fool into errors

tricking a kid

I've never tried to fool or trick AI with excessively complex questions. When I tried to test it (a few different models over some period of time - ChatGPT, Bing AI, Gemini) I asked stuff as simple as "what's the etymology of this word in that language", "what is [some phenomenon]". The models still produced responses ranging from shoddy to absolutely ridiculous.

completely detached from how anyone actually uses

I've seen numerous people use it the same way I tested it, basically a Google search that you can talk with, with similarly shit results.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 10 hours ago

Why do we expect a higher degree of trustworthiness from a novel LLM than we de from any given source or forum comment on the internet?

At what point do we stop hand-wringing over llms failing to meet some perceived level of accuracy and hold the people using it responsible for verifying the response themselves?

Theres a giant disclaimer on every one of these models that responses may contain errors or hallucinations, at this point I think it's fair to blame the user for ignoring those warnings and not the models for not meeting some arbitrary standard.