|
|
|
|
|
|
by TZubiri
558 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree with this take, Stallman has expressed it recently by linking some "scientific article". While I get that LLMs generate text in some way that does not guarantee correctness. There is a correlation between generated text and correctness, which is why millions of people use it... You can judge the correctness of a sentence generated by an LLM. In the same way you can judge the correctness of a human generated sentence. Now whether the truthness or correlation with reality of an LLM sentence can be judged on its own or whether it requires a human to interpret it is not very relevant, as sentences produced by the LLM are still correct most of the time. Just because it is not perfect doesn't make the correctness in the other cases useless, albeit perhaps less useful of course. This is nothing surprising of a statistical model, it tends to produce true results. |
|
|
I don't know how to parse this. What article did Stallman "link", and what are you saying Stallman "expressed" by linking/using it?
> whether the truthness or correlation with reality of an LLM sentence can be judged on its own or whether it requires a human to interpret it is not very relevant
It's incredibly relevant. We wouldn't even be having these debates if complex LLM judgements could always be verified without a human checking the logic.
> sentences produced by the LLM are still correct most of the time
At least half the problem here is that humans are accustomed to using certain cues as an indirect sign of time-investment, attentiveness, intelligence, truth, etc... and now those cues can be cheaply and quickly counterfeited. It breaks all those old correlations faster than we are adapting.