this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
424 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Abstract:

Hallucination has been widely recognized to be a significant drawback for large language models (LLMs). There have been many works that attempt to reduce the extent of hallucination. These efforts have mostly been empirical so far, which cannot answer the fundamental question whether it can be completely eliminated. In this paper, we formalize the problem and show that it is impossible to eliminate hallucination in LLMs. Specifically, we define a formal world where hallucina- tion is defined as inconsistencies between a computable LLM and a computable ground truth function. By employing results from learning theory, we show that LLMs cannot learn all of the computable functions and will therefore always hal- lucinate. Since the formal world is a part of the real world which is much more complicated, hallucinations are also inevitable for real world LLMs. Furthermore, for real world LLMs constrained by provable time complexity, we describe the hallucination-prone tasks and empirically validate our claims. Finally, using the formal world framework, we discuss the possible mechanisms and efficacies of existing hallucination mitigators as well as the practical implications on the safe deployment of LLMs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I spent an hour and a half arguing with my brother about probability, because he asked ChatGPT what the probability that he and his daughter were born on the same day.

ChatGPT said 1/113465 which it claimed was 1/365^2 (this value is actually 1/133225) because there's a 1/365 chance he was born on such and such day, and a 1/365 chance his daughter was too.

But anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of probability would know that it's just 1/365, because it doesn't actually matter on which day they both happened to be born.

He wanted to feel special, and ChatGPT confirmed his biases hard, and I got to be the dickhead and say it is special, but it's 1/400 special not 1/100000. I don't believe he's completely forgiven me over disillusioning him.

So yeah, I've had a minor family falling out over ChatGPT hallucinations.

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That's a fun story, but isn't applicable to the topic here. That could very easily be verified as true or false by a secondary system. In fact you can just ask Wolfram Alpha. Ask it what are the odds that any two people share the same birthday. I just asked it that exact question and it replied 1/365

EDIT

in fact I just asked that exact same question to chatgpt4 and it also replied 1/365

[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

in fact I just asked that exact same question to chatgpt4 and it also replied 1/365

Yes, you can get different answers because of different phrasing and also because random vector input

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

Are you using 4? Because it's much better than the earlier versions

Well if we have a reliable oracle available for a type of questions (i.e. Wolfram Alpha) why use an llm at all instead of just asking the oracle directly