47
If robots could lie, would we be okay with it? A new study throws up intriguing results.
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
47 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
59204 readers
2746 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An LLMs "intent" is always to give you a plausible response even if it doesn't have the "knowledge". The same behaviour in a human would be classed as lying IMHO.
But you wouldn't call it lying if a person tells you something they think is true but turns out to be false. Lying means intentionally giving out false information. LLMs don't have intentions.
Yeah I think it's more fitting to use the term bullshitting.
LLMs actually know that some of their answers have low probability to be the right ones, they give them out regardless, and don't mention the low confidence of it.
You would call what they said bullshit though.
Intent is irrelevant. Bullshit is bullshit.
Depends which definition of bullshit you use, I guess.
Wiki
That's another way to say "intent is irrelevant".
It's also effectively the perfect definition of LLM output. Content for the sole purpose of looking the part with absolutely no consideration for reality.
Quoting out of context is not going to score you any points
It is intended (by the designer) to persuade. It's intended to persuade you that it's something a human would say.
Ignoring that you're trying to claim one dude's definition of bullshit as the law, that one dude's definition is an exact flawless match for what LLMs are.
According to you, I presume? Or can you back that up somehow?
LLMs were developed to simulate human-like understanding and generation of language. They're called large language models for a reason.
No, they weren't. There was never at any point any theoretical possibility that an LLM would resemble understanding in any way.
That's why they simulate it. Just like I said.
Look, there's no point going any further with this. You just keep making baseless claims without any explanation or even attempt to try and convince me otherwise. When called out, you ignore it and move on. I'm not interested in discussions where people are just talking past each other while disregarding everything said in the previous messages. Take care now.
They don't simulate anything.
LLMs are objectively bullshit. You're the one who went way down the train trying to act like the exact correct word wasn't fair, and I responded to the only part of any of your posts that wasn't outright word salad nonsense.
...but if they don't know I expect them to say so. An LLM isn't trustworthy until it says "I don't know".