| One could always argue that the lie is in the ear of the receiver 8-/ I would argue, that if the output of the LLM is to be interpreted as natural speech, and the output makes an authoritative statement, which is factually incorrect, but stated as if it were true, this is a lie. The problem is that the tech is presented as if it did have the internal state, that you accurately describe it not having. The lie in this example, is when it is prompted to describe the process by which it reached a result, and that description has no resemblance to the actual process by which it reached the result. This isn't a misrepresentation of some external facts, but a complete fabrication, that does not represent how it reached that result, at all. However many users will accept this information, since it only involves internal aspects of the tool itself. The fact that the LLM doesn't have this introspective information, is part of exactly why LLMs are NOT intelligence, artificial or otherwise. And yet they are being presented as such, also, a lie... |