← Back to context

Comment by thephyber

7 hours ago

Your one example doesn't make all of LLMs a lie.

It's like someone reading a National Enquirer article about "Hillary Clinton being an alien from outer space" (a real headline topic from decades ago) and drawling the conclusion that all journalism is "a lie". The user has to understand media literacy and be at least a little skeptical of the claims that are made, then cross reference with another source.

It kind of does, mathematically. It doesn't label confidence. If 0.0001% of answers is a lie, without knowing which parts are a lie exactly, you cannot trust any of them.

If you need to independently verify every fact, why not just gather facts yourself in the first place.

Let's say, a mathematical concept of lie. I still use them every day, of course.

Okay, but the anecdote states that every model repeated the pseudo-factoid about Foobar square, not just the 4 GB open source model equivalent of a tabloid.

  • Without disclosing what you were prompting for, it's impossible to evaluate your claim.

    • Correct. We can either accept the claim or disregard it. The comment I replied to opted to accept it and then committed a fallacy, hence my response.