Yesterday I tried to google "can the Halifax Wanderers still make the CPL playoffs?"
So obviously what appears right at the top is the AI summary, which told me "they've already secured their #4 position and made the playoffs". I knew this wasn't true, and I guess I could have just scrolled down a bit further and found my answer but now I was curious.
So I said "that's not true, they're still #5, what I want to know is _could they still make the playoffs_"
It says they've got an upcoming game against Ottawa, and if they win their chances are good. That game has already taken place, so I correct it again and finally I get a reasonable answer.
My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering? Like, I can't wrap my head around that. The answer is on the same page as its hallucination. It could have done a cursory look around before first hallucinating something completely false, and when corrected the first time giving me outdated information. It's meant to be A SEARCH ENGINE!
This is similar to how, not too long ago, LLM's had extreme difficulty counting the number of letters in some words. LLM's don't "think" or "reason" in the normal definition of those terms. They can do some pretty amazing things, but still screw up basic things like telling you something that is obviously wrong and contradicts the top search results.
LLM's, in their present stage of development, are sort of like a crack-addled idiot savant. Sometimes they are obviously insane, and sometimes they seem quite cogent, but you must never trust them implicitly. This may be why they are so difficult to constrain. You could give them something equivalent to the laws of robotics, but following laws requires thought processes they simply don't have.
I'm actually sort of amazed Google doesn't make people accept some kind of butt-covering EULA and post disclaimers about the inaccuracy of results before even showing you their AI's output. Are they not being sued over this kind of thing?
That is a conflation of LLMs (which have clear limitations) and complex harnesses of which an LLM is one component.
I think it is clear that future AI may incorporate an LLM as a component but the current concept of LLMs are a transitional form that will give way to more capable composite models.
No it isn't. Even without any harness at all, modern LLMs are better at maths than the majority of undergraduate students in mathematics. Seriously, we need to face facts, not just comforting ourselves with what they were like a year ago.
It doesn't input and output letters. It's like if it communicated with a version of sign language that's closer to written English. It's using all the same words but it has an arbitrary signal or two for each one.
It can't spell for garbage because the tokenizer hides the real spellings from the LLM.
Even if this was a math question that he asked, this is live audio input/output from a multimodal model. It is designed for rapid responses. This is not even remotely related to what we are talking about.
Hugsbox · · focus · HN ↗
So obviously what appears right at the top is the AI summary, which told me "they've already secured their #4 position and made the playoffs". I knew this wasn't true, and I guess I could have just scrolled down a bit further and found my answer but now I was curious.
So I said "that's not true, they're still #5, what I want to know is _could they still make the playoffs_"
It says they've got an upcoming game against Ottawa, and if they win their chances are good. That game has already taken place, so I correct it again and finally I get a reasonable answer.
My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering? Like, I can't wrap my head around that. The answer is on the same page as its hallucination. It could have done a cursory look around before first hallucinating something completely false, and when corrected the first time giving me outdated information. It's meant to be A SEARCH ENGINE!
beloch · · focus · HN ↗
LLM's, in their present stage of development, are sort of like a crack-addled idiot savant. Sometimes they are obviously insane, and sometimes they seem quite cogent, but you must never trust them implicitly. This may be why they are so difficult to constrain. You could give them something equivalent to the laws of robotics, but following laws requires thought processes they simply don't have.
I'm actually sort of amazed Google doesn't make people accept some kind of butt-covering EULA and post disclaimers about the inaccuracy of results before even showing you their AI's output. Are they not being sued over this kind of thing?
VCFundedGenYer · · focus · HN ↗
fasterik · · focus · HN ↗
Isamu · · focus · HN ↗
I think it is clear that future AI may incorporate an LLM as a component but the current concept of LLMs are a transitional form that will give way to more capable composite models.
hodgehog11 · · focus · HN ↗
dwaite · · focus · HN ↗
spartanatreyu · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTyLHDRhwJg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTyLHDRhwJg
Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
spartanatreyu · · focus · HN ↗
Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
And it can count fine. It doesn't know how to spell.
spartanatreyu · · focus · HN ↗
Counting most certainly is math.
Can you define or explain counting without also referencing/defining/explaining a mathematics concept?
> And it can count fine. It doesn't know how to spell.
It's the other way around, it could spell, it couldn't count the letters.
Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
It can't spell for garbage because the tokenizer hides the real spellings from the LLM.
hodgehog11 · · focus · HN ↗