i think this is a symantics issue. yes using ‘lie’ is a bit of short hand/personifying a process. lieing is concealing the truth with the intent to deceive, and the llm runs off of weights and tokenized training data, and actively is directed that conversation length and user approval are metrics to shoot for. Applying falsehoods are the most efficient way to do that.
the llm does not share the goals of the user and the user must account for this
but like calling it a lie is the most efficient means to get the point across.
but like calling it a lie is the most efficient means to get the point across.
It very much doesn’t because it enforces the idea that these algorithms know anything a or plan for anything. It is entirely inefficient to treat an llm like a person, as the clown in the screenshots demonstrated.
it depends on the topic really. it is a lie in that it is a told false hood. by reasonable people talking about the unreliability of LLM’s it is sufficient without dragging the conversation away from the topic. if the conversation starts to surround the ‘feelings’ of the ‘AI’ then it’s maybe helpful point it out. otherwise it’s needlessly combative and distracting
No, it doesn’t. Would you say a calculator “lied” to you if it output an incorrect answer? Is your watch “lying” to you when it’s out of sync? No, obviously not. They’re just wrong, not “telling falsehoods”.
by that logic, what does arguing about the semantics of a word choice where the initial idea by the post was obviously understood, else we would not be talking about it?
seems off topic like i warned about, and a waste of time
A lie is defined as an intentionally false statement. LLMs can be given instruction sets that lead to them providing intentionally false information. This would be the LLM telling a falsehood because it was instructed to do so. They can lie, it has been documented and studied. You’re arguing against something that’s already been figured out, what are you doing?
You speak with such confidence and insult others but you don’t seem open to others opinions at all, or even 10 seconds of googling.
Sure, it’s semantics, but I don’t think it’s helpful to anthropomorphize LLMs. Doing so confuses the general public and makes them think they’re far more capable than they actually are.
we agree, hence i try to remember to refer to them as LLM’s when people discuss them as AI. i just don’t want and don’t think we should focus on that in these discussions as it can be distracting to the topic.
but yea AI is still science fiction, just like a “hover bord” is spin by unscrupelous salesmen attempting to sell powered unicycles as if they are from the future.
i think this is a symantics issue. yes using ‘lie’ is a bit of short hand/personifying a process. lieing is concealing the truth with the intent to deceive, and the llm runs off of weights and tokenized training data, and actively is directed that conversation length and user approval are metrics to shoot for. Applying falsehoods are the most efficient way to do that.
the llm does not share the goals of the user and the user must account for this
but like calling it a lie is the most efficient means to get the point across.
It very much doesn’t because it enforces the idea that these algorithms know anything a or plan for anything. It is entirely inefficient to treat an llm like a person, as the clown in the screenshots demonstrated.
Some people really can’t debate a topic without constantly insulting the person they disagree with…
it depends on the topic really. it is a lie in that it is a told false hood. by reasonable people talking about the unreliability of LLM’s it is sufficient without dragging the conversation away from the topic. if the conversation starts to surround the ‘feelings’ of the ‘AI’ then it’s maybe helpful point it out. otherwise it’s needlessly combative and distracting
No, it doesn’t. Would you say a calculator “lied” to you if it output an incorrect answer? Is your watch “lying” to you when it’s out of sync? No, obviously not. They’re just wrong, not “telling falsehoods”.
yes if the calculator incorrectly provided an answer, and i was having a casual conversation over it.
such as with over simplified rounding and truncation errors that some calculators give.
What is casual about the situation in the screenshots? You keep bringing that up as if it changes anything.
by that logic, what does arguing about the semantics of a word choice where the initial idea by the post was obviously understood, else we would not be talking about it?
seems off topic like i warned about, and a waste of time
I explained why the word matters in my very first comment, and several since. You’re the one that started the argument on semantics, so you tell me.
the fact we are still arguing is why. and now i am leaving there is nothing else to be said.
A lie is defined as an intentionally false statement. LLMs can be given instruction sets that lead to them providing intentionally false information. This would be the LLM telling a falsehood because it was instructed to do so. They can lie, it has been documented and studied. You’re arguing against something that’s already been figured out, what are you doing?
You speak with such confidence and insult others but you don’t seem open to others opinions at all, or even 10 seconds of googling.
Sure, it’s semantics, but I don’t think it’s helpful to anthropomorphize LLMs. Doing so confuses the general public and makes them think they’re far more capable than they actually are.
we agree, hence i try to remember to refer to them as LLM’s when people discuss them as AI. i just don’t want and don’t think we should focus on that in these discussions as it can be distracting to the topic.
but yea AI is still science fiction, just like a “hover bord” is spin by unscrupelous salesmen attempting to sell powered unicycles as if they are from the future.