Most of the time I use assistant to either perform home automation tasks, or look stuff up online. The first one already works fine, and for the second one I won’t trust a glorified autocomplete.
Good point, hallucinations only add to the fake news problem and artificial content problem.
I’ll counter with this: how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit? Should we go back to encyclopedias? Who writes those?
Edit: in case anyone isn’t aware, GPT “hallucinates” made up information in specific cases when temperature and top_p settings aren’t optimized, wasn’t saying anyone’s opinion was a hallucination of course
Some generative chatbots will say something then link to where the info is from. That’s good because I can followup
Some will just say something. That’s bad and I’ll have to search myself afterwards.
It’s the equivalent of a book with no cover or a webpage where I can’t see what website it’s on. Maybe it’s reputable, maybe it’s not. Without a source I can’t really decide
Ya, it’s utterly baffling to me that anyone would use a tool that predicts the next word in a sentence to try and learn something. Besides, what’s the endgame when no reporter could make a living because all their words are laundered and fed into a most people are saying bot? At that point new and unknown news, information, and facts will just be filtered out unless a lot of clickbait sites steal them because they the words don’t show up in the average conversation frequently enough.
Amusing, much like the Cryptocurrency and NFT industry where everyone from the CEO of Openai to the majority of the influencers came from, the extent that the system remind useable at all is reliant on the technology being niche. If it ever actually did become the primary method the tech would fundamentally collapse under its own weight.
Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.
Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.
Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.
AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.
Fact checking is about making sure the things we know are true. You seem to be saying that we can’t obtain objective facts in order to verify what is true, but this is incorrect.
It’s important to understand that if needed, everything we know can be verified. You can obtain the sources of the work done that shows how it was done, when and by whom.
None of that is subjective. If it were, your TV wouldn’t work, aeroplane’s could not fly and the device you used to read and comment here would not exist.
“Everything” is not subjective and to say so is no different than belief in magic.
Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.
All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.
Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us
I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)
To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)
I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.
Most of the time I use assistant to either perform home automation tasks, or look stuff up online. The first one already works fine, and for the second one I won’t trust a glorified autocomplete.
Good point, hallucinations only add to the fake news problem and artificial content problem.
I’ll counter with this: how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit? Should we go back to encyclopedias? Who writes those?
Edit: in case anyone isn’t aware, GPT “hallucinates” made up information in specific cases when temperature and top_p settings aren’t optimized, wasn’t saying anyone’s opinion was a hallucination of course
Some generative chatbots will say something then link to where the info is from. That’s good because I can followup
Some will just say something. That’s bad and I’ll have to search myself afterwards.
It’s the equivalent of a book with no cover or a webpage where I can’t see what website it’s on. Maybe it’s reputable, maybe it’s not. Without a source I can’t really decide
Ya, it’s utterly baffling to me that anyone would use a tool that predicts the next word in a sentence to try and learn something. Besides, what’s the endgame when no reporter could make a living because all their words are laundered and fed into a most people are saying bot? At that point new and unknown news, information, and facts will just be filtered out unless a lot of clickbait sites steal them because they the words don’t show up in the average conversation frequently enough.
Amusing, much like the Cryptocurrency and NFT industry where everyone from the CEO of Openai to the majority of the influencers came from, the extent that the system remind useable at all is reliant on the technology being niche. If it ever actually did become the primary method the tech would fundamentally collapse under its own weight.
I feel like this question is rhetorical but if it’s not, I’m surprised anyone on Lemmy isn’t aware of how to cross reference when fact checking.
I’m more than happy to help with that if required.
Yep you got me!
Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.
Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.
Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.
AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.
Fact checking is about making sure the things we know are true. You seem to be saying that we can’t obtain objective facts in order to verify what is true, but this is incorrect.
It’s important to understand that if needed, everything we know can be verified. You can obtain the sources of the work done that shows how it was done, when and by whom.
None of that is subjective. If it were, your TV wouldn’t work, aeroplane’s could not fly and the device you used to read and comment here would not exist.
“Everything” is not subjective and to say so is no different than belief in magic.
Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.
All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.
Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us
You’re still implying that obtaining objective facts is less reliable than made up stories.
Unless I’m completely mistaken, could you explain why you think that is please?
I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)
To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)
I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.
Hmm, then we could be talking past each other. I’m bridging the two as polar opposites but you say that’s not what you’re getting at?
Could you expand on this? Preferably with an example using something other than history, eg a reaction or a sum.