Meta “programmed it to simply not answer questions,” but it did anyway.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    The only reason why it’s so incredibly good in many applications is because it’s bad in others. It’s intentionally designed that way.

    lolwut

    • doodledup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s designed in a ways that’ll make it inherently incorrect. Even on a physical basis (due to numeric issues). It’s not a problem of the algorithm because it has been designed that way. The problem is that you don’t know how to correctly use it.

      I can’t explain it any differently without getting overly technical. You wouldn’t understand it anyways, judging by your comment “lolwut”. If you want to learn how LLMs work specifically, there are plenty of ressources on the internet.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s designed in a ways that’ll make it inherently incorrect. Even on a physical basis (due to numeric issues). It’s not a problem of the algorithm because it has been designed that way. The problem is that you don’t know how to correctly use it.

        “It doesn’t make a good source of knowledge.”

        “Yeah, but it is designed to be inherently wrong”

        How does that make any sense when trying to use something for knowledge? Being inherently wrong is the opposite of helpful for knowledge.

        AI is great at pattern recognition, but knowledge isn’t pattern recognition. Needing to know when it gives false information requires the “supervisor” to already have that knowledge. That makes the AI less useful than a simple reference because at least the reference can come from a trusted source.

        If people stopped trying to jam AI into situations where being correct is important it wouldn’t be a problem. But excusing that because it is designed to be inherently wrong deserves another LOLWUT.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          How does that make any sense when trying to use something for knowledge? Being inherently wrong is the opposite of helpful for knowledge.

          It was never designed to reproduce knowledge. It was designed to do reasoning and natural language processing and generation. You’re using it wrong.

          LULWUT

          If you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t have any capacity to learn something new, it’s sometimes best to stop talking. Especially when you’re starting to get rude to knowlegable people that try to explain it to you.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s designed in a ways that’ll make it inherently incorrect. Even on a physical basis (due to numeric issues). It’s not a problem of the algorithm because it has been designed that way. The problem is that you don’t know how to correctly use it.

        So it is bad at things like giving or finding factual information. I agree, companies need to stop cramming it into everything (like search engines) for tasks that it is specifically bad at because it is not designed for it.

      • uranibaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Can you recommend any for resource to start with? (If I can be picky, then something I can consume after a whole day of being a patent because there is no energy for much else.)