←back to thread

504 points puttycat | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
theoldgreybeard ◴[] No.46182214[source]
If a carpenter builds a crappy shelf “because” his power tools are not calibrated correctly - that’s a crappy carpenter, not a crappy tool.

If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist.

AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.

replies(37): >>46182289 #>>46182330 #>>46182334 #>>46182385 #>>46182388 #>>46182401 #>>46182463 #>>46182527 #>>46182613 #>>46182714 #>>46182766 #>>46182839 #>>46182944 #>>46183118 #>>46183119 #>>46183265 #>>46183341 #>>46183343 #>>46183387 #>>46183435 #>>46183436 #>>46183490 #>>46183571 #>>46183613 #>>46183846 #>>46183911 #>>46183917 #>>46183923 #>>46183940 #>>46184450 #>>46184551 #>>46184653 #>>46184796 #>>46185025 #>>46185817 #>>46185849 #>>46189343 #
TomatoCo ◴[] No.46182334[source]
To continue the carpenter analogy, the issue with LLMs is that the shelf looks great but is structurally unsound. That it looks good on surface inspection makes it harder to tell that the person making it had no idea what they're doing.
replies(2): >>46182418 #>>46183049 #
embedding-shape ◴[] No.46182418[source]
Regardless, if a carpenter is not validating their work before selling it, it's the same as if a researcher doesn't validate their citations before publishing. Neither of them have any excuses, and one isn't harder to detect than the other. It's just straight up laziness regardless.
replies(1): >>46182550 #
judofyr ◴[] No.46182550[source]
I think this is a bit unfair. The carpenters are (1) living in world where there’s an extreme focus on delivering as quicklyas possible, (2) being presented with a tool which is promised by prominent figures to be amazing, and (3) the tool is given at a low cost due to being subsidized.

And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers? Clearly there’s more problems in this world than «lazy carpenters»?

replies(3): >>46182660 #>>46182776 #>>46182962 #
SauntSolaire ◴[] No.46182776[source]
Yes, that's what it means to be a professional, you take responsibility for the quality of your work.
replies(3): >>46182881 #>>46183158 #>>46183731 #
bossyTeacher ◴[] No.46183731[source]
Well, then what does this say of LLM engineers at literally any AI company in existence if they are delivering AI that is unreliable then? Surely, they must take responsibility for the quality of their work and not blame it on something else.
replies(1): >>46184407 #
embedding-shape ◴[] No.46184407[source]
I feel like what "unreliable" means, depends on well you understand LLMs. I use them in my professional work, and they're reliable in terms of I'm always getting tokens back from them, I don't think my local models have failed even once at doing just that. And this is the product that is being sold.

Some people take that to mean that responses from LLMs are (by human standards) "always correct" and "based on knowledge", while this is a misunderstanding about how LLMs work. They don't know "correct" nor do they have "knowledge", they have tokens, that come after tokens, and that's about it.

replies(2): >>46184647 #>>46185088 #
amrocha ◴[] No.46184647[source]
it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do.

Lawyers are running their careers by citing hallucinated cases. Researchers are writing papers with hallucinated references. Programmers are taking down production by not verifying AI code.

Humans were made to do things, not to verify things. Verifying something is 10x harder than doing it right. AI in the hands of humans is a foot rocket launcher.

replies(1): >>46184906 #
1. embedding-shape ◴[] No.46184906[source]
> it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do.

Again, true for most things. A lot of people are terrible drivers, terrible judge of their own character, and terrible recreational drug users. Does that mean we need to remove all those things that can be misused?

I much rather push back on shoddy work no matter what source. I don't care if the citations are from a robot or a human, if they suck, then you suck, because you're presenting this as your work. I don't care if your paralegal actually wrote the document, be responsible for the work you supposedly do.

> Humans were made to do things, not to verify things.

I'm glad you seemingly have some grand idea of what humans were meant to do, I certainly wouldn't claim I do so, but I'm also not religious. For me, humans do what humans do, and while we didn't used to mostly sit down and consume so much food and other things, now we do.

replies(1): >>46187537 #
2. amrocha ◴[] No.46187537[source]
>A lot of people are terrible drivers, terrible judge of their own character, and terrible recreational drug users. Does that mean we need to remove all those things that can be misused?

Uhh, yes??? We have completely reshaped our cities so that cars can thrive in them at the expense of people. We have laws and exams and enforcement all to prevent cars from being driven by irresponsible people.

And most drugs are literally illegal! The ones that arent are highly regulated!

If your argument is that AI is like heroin then I agree, let’s ban it and arrest anyone making it.

replies(1): >>46189076 #
3. pertymcpert ◴[] No.46189076[source]
People need to be responsible for things they put their name on. End of story. No AI company claims their models are perfect and don’t hallucinate. But paper authors should at least verify every single character their submit.
replies(2): >>46189139 #>>46189471 #
4. amrocha ◴[] No.46189139{3}[source]
Yes, but they don’t. So clearly AI is a foot gun. What are doing about it?
5. bossyTeacher ◴[] No.46189471{3}[source]
>No AI company claims their models are perfect and don’t hallucinate

You can't have it both ways. Either AIs are worth billions BECAUSE they can run mostly unsupervised or they are not. This is exactly like the AI driving system in Autopilot, sold as autonomous but reality doesn't live up to it.