you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

No one is saying "they're useless." But they are indeed bullshit machines, for the reasons the author (and you yourself) acknowledged. Their purposes is to choose likely words. That likely and correct are frequently the same shouldn't blind us to the fact that correctness is a coincidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That likely and correct are frequently the same shouldn’t blind us to the fact that correctness is a coincidence.

    That's an absurd statement. Do you have any experience with machine learning?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, it's been my career for the last two decades and before that was the focus of my education. The idea that "correctness is a coincidence" is absurd and either fails to understand how training works or rejects the entire premise of large data revealing functional relationships in the underlying processes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago

    Or you've simply misunderstood what I've said despite your two decades of experience and education.

    If you train a model on a bad dataset, will it give you correct data?

    If you ask a question a model it doesn't have enough data to be confident about an answer, will it still confidently give you a correct answer?

    And, more importantly, is it trained to offer CORRECT data, or is it trained to return words regardless of whether or not that data is correct?

    I mean, it's like you haven't even thought about this.

  • source
  • parent