502
We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
204 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I fucking hate how OpenAi and other such companies claim their models "understand" language or are "fluent" in French. These are human attributes. Unless they made a synthetic brain, they can take these claims and shove them up their square tight corporate behinds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I though I would have an aneurism reading their presentation page on Sora.

    They are saying Sora can understand and simulate complex physics in 3D space to render a video.

    How can such bullshit go unchallenged. It drives me crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    This is circular logic: only humans can be fluent, so the models can't be fluent because they aren't human.

    And it's universally upvoted...in response to an ais getting things wrong so they can't be doing anything but hallucinating.

    And will you learn from this? Nope. I'll just be down voted and shouted at.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    It's not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You might agree with the conclusion, and the conclusion might even be correct, but the poster effectively argued 'only humans can be fluent, and it's not a human so it isn't fluent' and that is absolutely circular logic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If we ignore the other poster, do you think the logic in my previous comment is circular?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago

    Hard to say. You claim they are incapable of understanding, which is why they can't be fluent. however, really, the whole argument boils down to whether they are capable of understanding. You just state that as if it's established fact, and I believe that's an open question at this point.

    So whether it is circular depends on why you think they are incapable of understanding. If it's like the other poster, and it's because that's a human(ish) only trait, and they aren't human...then yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent