▲ 315 ▼ OpenAI next model Orion by December, it's 100x cooler bro trust me bro no we're not releasing to the public bro it's just too dangerous and cool bro (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by dgerard@awful.systems [M] to c/techtakes@awful.systems 103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] LostXOR@fedia.io 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] modifier@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 years ago (5 children) I'm already sick and tired of the "hallucinate" euphemism. It isn't a cute widdle hallucination, It's the damn product being wrong. Dangerously, stupidly, obviously wrong. In a world that hadn't already gone well to shit, this would be considered an unacceptable error and a demonstration that the product isn't ready. Now I suddenly find myself living in this accelerated idiocracy where wall street has forced us - as a fucking society - to live with a Ready, Fire, Aim mentality in business, especially tech. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 16 points 2 years ago (4 children) I think it's weird that "hallucination" would be considered a cute euphemism. Would you trust something that's perpetually tripping balls and confidently announcing whatever comes to them in a dream? To me that sounds worse than merely being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the problem is that it portrays them as weird exceptions, possibly even echoes from some kind of ghost in the machine. Instead of being a statistical inevitability when you're asking for the next predicted token instead of meaningfully examining a model of reality. "Hallucination" applies only to the times when the output is obviously bad, and hides the fact that it's doing exactly the same thing when it incidentally produces a true statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I get the gist, but also it's kinda hard to come up with a better alternative. A simple "being wrong" doesn't exactly communicate it either. I don't think "hallucination" is a perfect word for the phenomenon of "a statistically probable sequence of language tokens forming a factually incorrect claim" by any means, but in terms of the available options I find it pretty good. I don't think the issue here is the word, it's just that a lot of people think the machines are smart when they're not. Not anthropomorphizing the machines is a battle that was lost no later than the time computer data representation devices were named "memory", so I don't think that's really the issue here either. As a side note, I've seen cases of people (admittedly, mostly critics of AI in the first place) call anything produced by an LLM a hallucination regardless of truthfulness. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly a bit, yeah I would not trust someone like that permalink fedilink source parent [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 19 points 2 years ago [ChatGPT interrupts a Scrabble game, spills the tiles onto the table, and rearranges THEY ARE SO GREAT into TOO MANY SECRETS] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 years ago (5 children) I'm already sick and tired of the "hallucinate" euphemism. It isn't a cute widdle hallucination, It's the damn product being wrong. Dangerously, stupidly, obviously wrong. In a world that hadn't already gone well to shit, this would be considered an unacceptable error and a demonstration that the product isn't ready. Now I suddenly find myself living in this accelerated idiocracy where wall street has forced us - as a fucking society - to live with a Ready, Fire, Aim mentality in business, especially tech. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 16 points 2 years ago (4 children) I think it's weird that "hallucination" would be considered a cute euphemism. Would you trust something that's perpetually tripping balls and confidently announcing whatever comes to them in a dream? To me that sounds worse than merely being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the problem is that it portrays them as weird exceptions, possibly even echoes from some kind of ghost in the machine. Instead of being a statistical inevitability when you're asking for the next predicted token instead of meaningfully examining a model of reality. "Hallucination" applies only to the times when the output is obviously bad, and hides the fact that it's doing exactly the same thing when it incidentally produces a true statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I get the gist, but also it's kinda hard to come up with a better alternative. A simple "being wrong" doesn't exactly communicate it either. I don't think "hallucination" is a perfect word for the phenomenon of "a statistically probable sequence of language tokens forming a factually incorrect claim" by any means, but in terms of the available options I find it pretty good. I don't think the issue here is the word, it's just that a lot of people think the machines are smart when they're not. Not anthropomorphizing the machines is a battle that was lost no later than the time computer data representation devices were named "memory", so I don't think that's really the issue here either. As a side note, I've seen cases of people (admittedly, mostly critics of AI in the first place) call anything produced by an LLM a hallucination regardless of truthfulness. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly a bit, yeah I would not trust someone like that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 16 points 2 years ago (4 children) I think it's weird that "hallucination" would be considered a cute euphemism. Would you trust something that's perpetually tripping balls and confidently announcing whatever comes to them in a dream? To me that sounds worse than merely being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the problem is that it portrays them as weird exceptions, possibly even echoes from some kind of ghost in the machine. Instead of being a statistical inevitability when you're asking for the next predicted token instead of meaningfully examining a model of reality. "Hallucination" applies only to the times when the output is obviously bad, and hides the fact that it's doing exactly the same thing when it incidentally produces a true statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I get the gist, but also it's kinda hard to come up with a better alternative. A simple "being wrong" doesn't exactly communicate it either. I don't think "hallucination" is a perfect word for the phenomenon of "a statistically probable sequence of language tokens forming a factually incorrect claim" by any means, but in terms of the available options I find it pretty good. I don't think the issue here is the word, it's just that a lot of people think the machines are smart when they're not. Not anthropomorphizing the machines is a battle that was lost no later than the time computer data representation devices were named "memory", so I don't think that's really the issue here either. As a side note, I've seen cases of people (admittedly, mostly critics of AI in the first place) call anything produced by an LLM a hallucination regardless of truthfulness. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly a bit, yeah I would not trust someone like that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the problem is that it portrays them as weird exceptions, possibly even echoes from some kind of ghost in the machine. Instead of being a statistical inevitability when you're asking for the next predicted token instead of meaningfully examining a model of reality. "Hallucination" applies only to the times when the output is obviously bad, and hides the fact that it's doing exactly the same thing when it incidentally produces a true statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bitofhope@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I get the gist, but also it's kinda hard to come up with a better alternative. A simple "being wrong" doesn't exactly communicate it either. I don't think "hallucination" is a perfect word for the phenomenon of "a statistically probable sequence of language tokens forming a factually incorrect claim" by any means, but in terms of the available options I find it pretty good. I don't think the issue here is the word, it's just that a lot of people think the machines are smart when they're not. Not anthropomorphizing the machines is a battle that was lost no later than the time computer data representation devices were named "memory", so I don't think that's really the issue here either. As a side note, I've seen cases of people (admittedly, mostly critics of AI in the first place) call anything produced by an LLM a hallucination regardless of truthfulness. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I get the gist, but also it's kinda hard to come up with a better alternative. A simple "being wrong" doesn't exactly communicate it either. I don't think "hallucination" is a perfect word for the phenomenon of "a statistically probable sequence of language tokens forming a factually incorrect claim" by any means, but in terms of the available options I find it pretty good. I don't think the issue here is the word, it's just that a lot of people think the machines are smart when they're not. Not anthropomorphizing the machines is a battle that was lost no later than the time computer data representation devices were named "memory", so I don't think that's really the issue here either. As a side note, I've seen cases of people (admittedly, mostly critics of AI in the first place) call anything produced by an LLM a hallucination regardless of truthfulness. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Obvious bullshit is a good way to put it. It even implies the existence of less obvious bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly a bit, yeah I would not trust someone like that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 19 points 2 years ago [ChatGPT interrupts a Scrabble game, spills the tiles onto the table, and rearranges THEY ARE SO GREAT into TOO MANY SECRETS] permalink fedilink source parent