|
|
|
|
|
|
by mikkupikku
229 days ago
|
|
|
I doubt that could ever work. It's trivial to get these models to output fabrications if that's what you want; just keep asking it for more details about a subject than it could reasonably have. This works because the models are absolutely terrible at saying "I don't know", and this might be a fundamental limitation of the tech. Then of course you have the mess of figuring out what the facts even are, there are many contested subjects our society cannot agree on, many of which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. |
|
|
AI != LLMs. A future version of better AI might become capable of saying "I don't know."
The mess of figuring out what the facts are, in a way, already has deployed solutions. Journalists are a form of fact checkers. Big news companies with multi-million budgets pay journalists to check things. In effect there already is a market for fact-checking. Managing perceptions by twisting facts is something many have been accused of. When news companies are found to have spread lies they possibly face penalties.
So if the big clunky enterprise version of a form of fact-checking is already in place and kind of working, why would something closer to the lean startup-y tail-end of the distribution of fact-checking not work? If a version of a facts marketplace is already working, why doubt it would ever work?
X paying users for engagement is a new variation of this. Prediction markets like Polymarket is another. Polymarket teaming up with TruthSocial could be an interesting result.
It's okay to have many contested subjects our society cannot agree on and which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. It's okay to say I don't know.