Thread

1. drtgh · 1789758284 · focus · HN ↗

   > relatively poorly understood technology

   Poorly understood? how convenient...

   LLMs are vectorial databases with losses that index statistically filled data, which uses a text interface to query such statistically filled data. The output is a string concatenation (statistically concatenated bit by bit).

   When the LLMs are queried (prompted), you can get random mixed data as output, ERRORS, due to undesired indexes getting closer at one point while the string was being concatenated for the output, what affects the rest of the indexed content that will be concatenated.

   It is intrinsic to this tech. The larger the context, the greater the probability of get mixed data. And if the provider lowers the precision of those indexes -in order to decrease hardware resources and energy consumption- such probability increases to the point where those errors are granted.

   Even knowing that the queries can return wrong/mixed data in the responses, errors, the companies developing this, decided to introduce a new product, that connects such LLMs outputs to the command console, latter connected to internet, raw 'eval' running commands from such outputs witch obviously can contain whatever mixed random. Then we started to hear "oh, it deleted my directory", etc, and it seems the next one will be "a missile killed my wife", because it is a text concatenation engine with errors.

   To name it "hallucination" is an euphemism... those are errors, and they are granted to happen at one moment. If they do not know this, then they ate too much marketing without doing their job, or it was a convenient contract for the pocket$ of someone.

   1. margalabargala · 1789758879 · focus · HN ↗

      I agree with most of your comment, but...

      > To name it "hallucination" is an euphemism... those are errors

      I find this and other "don't anthropomorphize the computer" statements incredibly unconvincing.

      People develop terms for things and language has always contained overloaded or "literally inaccurate" terms.

      An LLM can have "hallucinations" in the same way a modern computer program can have "bugs".

      1. DanHulton · 1789781539 · focus · HN ↗

         I’ll even go one step further - I don’t even like saying “Artificial Intelligence”. I think even that anthropomorphizes the machine too much. I prefer “Simulated Intelligence”, and I feel like that describes what is going on much better.

         We are, through this process, simulating intelligence. These models aren’t intelligent, but they can simulate it. Every simulation has a degree of fidelity, and we’re not at 100%, not even with the top models. When you think about it in those terms, I find it becomes a lot easier to keep their limitations in mind. Additionally, it becomes easier to remember that this is an algorithm that you are running, and are responsible for, not another being that you can ascribe blame to.

         1. hardbass · 1790159633 · focus · HN ↗

            What is the difference between simulating eg factoring a cryptographic number that is the product of two large primes and "actually" factoring that number?

            1. DanHulton · 1790289821 · focus · HN ↗

               That is just one thing an intelligent actor can do. That is not intelligence.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.