Comment by freejazz
2 years ago
I think you are missing the point. If I do use it, then my result will be a broken and defective product. How exactly is that not clear? That's the point. It might not be observable to be, but whatever I'm affixing with the staple gun will come loose because its not working right and not sinking the staples in deep enough...
If I don't use it, then the tool is not used and provided no benefit...
It's not clear because it is false and I believe I can produce a proof if you are willing to validate that you accept my premise.
Your CPU, right now, has known defects. It will produce the wrong outputs for some inputs. It seems to meet your definition of broken.
Do you agree with that premise ?
One has nothing to do with the other. There's no rule about all broken tools because they can be broken in different ways. What's so difficult about my hypothetical? I laid it all out for you.
I assumed you understood we reached the end of the usefulness of your hypothetical to the original analogy since, as you said, the tools can be broken in different ways. I tried to introduce a scenario that was more applicable and less theoretical so that we could discuss those particular points.
If we do somehow try to apply your analogy, it would indicate that the LLM output is flawed in a way we cannot scrutinize -- the hidden failures that we aren't detecting (why? It's not specified, I am assuming because we didn't check to see if the tool was "broken" and not meeting some unspecified quality-level; that is, it's an unknown unknown failure mode).
This doesn't really comport with the LLM scenario, where the output is fully viewed, and the outputs are widely understood (that is it is a known failure mode).
This is more closely related to a computing service -- of which you are an active user of. You are using a "broken" computer right now, according to your definition of broken correct ?
1 reply →