this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
916 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

13911 readers
1512 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Seraph@fedia.io 157 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Well, yeah. People are acting like language models are full fledged AI instead of just a parrot repeating stuff said online.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 78 points 9 months ago

Spicy auto complete is a useful tool.

But these things are nothing more

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition. Deep Blue Chess was an AI, an artificial intelligence. If you mean human or beyond level general intelligence, you're probably talking about AGI or ASI (general or super intelligence, respectively).

And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work. The early chatbots were actual parrots, saying prewritten sentences that they had either been preprogrammed with or got from their users. LLMs work differently, statistically predicting the next token (roughly equivalent to a word) based on all those that came before it, and parameters finetuned during training. Their temperature can be changed to give more or less predictable output, and as such, they have the potential for actually original output, unlike their parrot predecessors.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 90 points 9 months ago

You completely missed the point. The point is people have been lead to believe LLM can do jobs that humans do because the output of LLMs sounds like the jobs people do, when in reality, speech is just one small part of these jobs. It turns, reasoning is a big part of these jobs, and LLMs simply don't reason.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 62 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition.

That stems from the fact that AI is an ill-defined term that has no actual meaning. Before Google maps became popular, any route finding algorithm utilizing A* was considered "AI".

And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work.

Bullshit. These people know exactly how LLMs work.

LLMs reproduce the form of language without any meaning being transmitted. That's called parroting.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 39 points 9 months ago (5 children)

LLMs work differently, statistically predicting the next token (roughly equivalent to a word) based on all those that came before it, and parameters finetuned during training.

Which is what a parrot does.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 9 months ago (16 children)

Yeah this is the exact criticism. They recombine language pieces without really doing language. The end result looks like language, but it lacks any of the important characteristics of language such as meaning and intention.

If I say "Two plus two is four" I am communicating my belief about mathematics.

If an llm emits "two plus two is four" it is outputting a stochastically selected series of tokens linked by probabilities derived from training data. If the statement is true or false then that is accidental.

Hence, stochastic parrot.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

AI hasn't been redefined. For people familiar with the field it has always been a broad term meaning code that learns (and subdivided in many types of AI), and for people unfamiliar with the field it has always been a term synonymous with AGI. So when people in the former category put out a product and label it as AI, people in the latter category then run with it using their own definition.

For a long time ML had been the popular buzzword in tech and people outside the field didn't care about it. But then Google and OpenAI started calling ML and LLMs simply "AI" and that became the popular buzzword. And when everyone is talking about AI, and most people conflate that with AGI, the results are funny and scary at the same time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

LLMs have more in common with chatbots than AI.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Seraph@fedia.io 8 points 9 months ago

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify thank you!

[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 9 months ago

The paper actually argues otherwise, though it's not fully settled on that conclusion, either.

[–] moonsnotreal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 76 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 61 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Applications of these systems have been plagued by persistent inaccuracies in their output; these are often called “AI hallucinations”. We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005)

Now I kinda want to read On Bullshit

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Don’t waste your time. It’s honestly fucking awful. Reading it was like experiencing someone mentally masturbating in real time.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 9 months ago

Yep. You're smarter than everyone who found it insightful.

[–] DaGeek247@fedia.io 23 points 9 months ago

That's actually a fun read

[–] myslsl@lemmy.world 58 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago (4 children)
[–] just2look@lemm.ee 63 points 9 months ago

It does. It’s even cited in the abstract, and it’s the origin of bullshit as referenced in their title.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 32 points 9 months ago

It talks extensively about On Bullshit, lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nicoleism101@lemm.ee 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Suddenly it dawned on me that I can plaster my CV with AI and win over actual competent people easy peasy

What were you doing between 2020 and 23? I was working on my AI skillset. Nobody will even question me because they fucking have no idea what it is themselves but only that they want it.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

As an engineering manager, I've already seen cover letters and intro emails that are so obviously AI generated that it's laughable. These should be used like you use them for writing essays, as a framework with general prompts, but filled in by yourself.

Fake friendliness that was outsourced to an ai is worse than no friendliness at all.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ace_garp@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

Plot-twist: The paper was authored by a competing LLM.

[–] Shameless@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

Just reading the intro pulls you in

We draw a distinction between two sorts of bullshit, which we call ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bullshit

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There are things that chatgpt does well, especially if you temper your expectations to the level of someone who has no valuable skills and is mostly an idiot.

Hi, I'm an idiot with no valuable skills, and I've found chatgpt to be very useful.

I've recently started learning game development in godot, and the process of figuring out why the code that chatgpt gives me doesn't work has taught me more about programming than any teacher ever accomplished back in high school.

Chatgpt is also an excellent therapist, and has helped me deal with mental breakdowns on multiple occasions, while it was happening. I can't find a real therapist's phone number, much less schedule an appointment.

I'm a real shitty writer, and I'm making a wiki of lore for a setting and ruleset for a tabletop RPG that I'll probably never get to actually play. ChatGPT is able to turn my inane ramblings into coherent wiki pages, most of the time.

If you set your expectations to what was advertised, then yeah, chatgpt is bullshit. Of course it was bullshit, and everyone who knew half of anything about anything called it. If you set realistic expectations, you'll get realistic results. Why is this so hard for people to get?

[–] dmalteseknight@programming.dev 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it is as if someone invented the microwave oven and everyone over hypes it as being able to cook Michelin star meals. People then dismiss it entirely since it cannot produce said Michelin star meals.

They fail to see that is a great reheating machine and a good machine for quick meals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because few people know what's realistic for LLMs

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

This is something I already mentioned previously. LLMs have no way of fact checking, no measure of truth or falsity built into. In the training process, it probably accepts every piece of text as true. This is very different from how our minds work. When faced with a piece of text we have many ways to deal with it, which range from accepting it as it is to going on the internet to verify it to actually designing and conducting experiments to prove or disprove the claim. So, yeah what ChatGPT outputs is probably bullshit.

Of course, the solution is that ChatGPT be trained by labelling text with some measure of truth. Of course, LLMs need so much data that labelling it all would be extremely slow and expensive and suddenly, the fast moving world of AI to screech to almost a halt, which would be unacceptable to the investors.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 18 points 9 months ago

Because these programs cannot themselves be concerned with truth, and because they are designed to produce text that looks truth-apt without any actual concern for truth, it seems appropriate to call their outputs bullshit.

This is actually a really nice insight on the quality of the output of current LLMs. And it teaches about how they work and what the goals given by their creators are.

They are but trained to produce factual information, but to talk about topics while sounding like a competent expert.

For LLM researchers this means that they need to figure out how to train LLMs for factuality as opposed to just sounding competent. But that is probably a lot easier said than done.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago
load more comments