People will read misinformation on the top comment of a Today I Learned post and take it as gospel truth before they click on the actual link of the post that immediately debunks it.
Okay, your output is different given the same input… So what? It’s a well known fact that these LLMs are non deterministic. Theres a guy on youtube that asks chatgpt everyday to count to 200 until it doesn’t fuck up. Your output does not prove or disprove the authenticity of the original post.
Tbh them being nondeterministic is a big part of why they’re so unreliable. Like, maybe it’ll work fine for 9/10 people, but then there will be that one person whose home directory gets wiped for whatever reason. Or maybe it’ll do math right for those nine people, but then for that one person it’ll say 1 + 1 = 11.
You’re basically gambling if you don’t verify the answers.
I’m referring to nondeterminism for the same prompt, since unless you start a session from scratch, it’s unlikely you’ll have the same history. If you give it a prompt, then depending on what you’ve told it previously, it may blow up in your face.
Determinism for the same prompt means you can’t give it context through a conversation, which vastly shrinks its utility.
That said, even that form of determinism can be unreliable: the example of arithmetic still works; you could have it completely deterministic, but if it only performs correctly on 80% of arithmetic problems, it’s still unreliable.
In fact, if you give it this prompt 50 times and it only fucks up once, that clearly indicates that this is post is misleading. It’s also likely this post was faked with a different prompt than the one shown.
Open a new thread and ask again. You’ll get a different result. Open a third thread and ask again, you’ll get yet another result. That’s how LLMs work. You getting a different answer to your prompt doesn’t mean anything.
We are in a memes community here, most memes are only tangentially related to the truth (if that). It’s a joke, it doesn’t have to be true, but if it is true (which there might be a chance of in this case) that makes it even funnier.
But if you’d like we can just go by 4chan rules here and post: “Fake and gay!”
But the thinking model, you know, also uses a lot more power. The solution is simply to use local models that can think, but of course that has become even more out of reach now thanks to AI companies.
Faky McFakeface
Its almost sad that people hate on ai for its power usage except when its used to mock AI and mislead the public.
Over 100 upvotes on Lemmy and noone checks this shit? Sheesh you wanna believe, am i right?! ;)
Literally no one checks anything on Lemmy lmao
People will read misinformation on the top comment of a Today I Learned post and take it as gospel truth before they click on the actual link of the post that immediately debunks it.
Okay, your output is different given the same input… So what? It’s a well known fact that these LLMs are non deterministic. Theres a guy on youtube that asks chatgpt everyday to count to 200 until it doesn’t fuck up. Your output does not prove or disprove the authenticity of the original post.
Tbh them being nondeterministic is a big part of why they’re so unreliable. Like, maybe it’ll work fine for 9/10 people, but then there will be that one person whose home directory gets wiped for whatever reason. Or maybe it’ll do math right for those nine people, but then for that one person it’ll say
1 + 1 = 11.You’re basically gambling if you don’t verify the answers.
Not really… Determinism would only help if you could copy someone else’s prompt and history 100%, which you generally would not be able to.
Because maybe it always gets 1+1 correct, but fails 1+2.
I’m referring to nondeterminism for the same prompt, since unless you start a session from scratch, it’s unlikely you’ll have the same history. If you give it a prompt, then depending on what you’ve told it previously, it may blow up in your face.
Determinism for the same prompt means you can’t give it context through a conversation, which vastly shrinks its utility.
That said, even that form of determinism can be unreliable: the example of arithmetic still works; you could have it completely deterministic, but if it only performs correctly on 80% of arithmetic problems, it’s still unreliable.
In fact, if you give it this prompt 50 times and it only fucks up once, that clearly indicates that this is post is misleading. It’s also likely this post was faked with a different prompt than the one shown.
Open a new thread and ask again. You’ll get a different result. Open a third thread and ask again, you’ll get yet another result. That’s how LLMs work. You getting a different answer to your prompt doesn’t mean anything.
Shhhh. Don’t bring logic into a Lemmy thread.
It scares the Lemmites, because it reminds them they’re not as smart as they try to act.
We are in a memes community here, most memes are only tangentially related to the truth (if that). It’s a joke, it doesn’t have to be true, but if it is true (which there might be a chance of in this case) that makes it even funnier.
But if you’d like we can just go by 4chan rules here and post: “Fake and gay!”
Just use the thinking model, which severely reduces hallucinations. Only silly people use the instant model to mock a tool for doing what it does.
But the thinking model, you know, also uses a lot more power. The solution is simply to use local models that can think, but of course that has become even more out of reach now thanks to AI companies.