• Eggyhead@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It annoys me that Chat GPT flat out lies to you when it doesn’t know the answer, and doesn’t have any system in place to admit it isn’t sure about something. It just makes it up and tells you like it’s fact.

    • BlueCanoe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That’s actually one thing that got significantly improved with GPT-5, fewer hallucinations. Still not perfect of course

    • kadu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      LLMs don’t have any awareness of their internal state, so there’s no way for them to see something as a gap of knowledge.

      • Doorknob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Took me ages to understand this. I’d thought "If an AI doesn’t know something, why not just say so?“

        The answer is: that wouldn’t make sense because an LLM doesn’t know ANYTHING

      • figjam@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Wouldn’t it make sense for an ai to provide a confidence level though?

        I’ve got 3 million bits of info on this topic but only 4 of them lead to this solution. Confidence level =1.5%

        • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          It’s always funny to me when people do add ‘confidence scores’ to LLMs, because it always amounts to just adding ‘say how confident you are with low, medium or high in your response’ to th prompt, and then you have made up confidences for made up replies. And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…

          • Eggyhead@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…

            That doesn’t justify flat out making shit up to everyone else, though. If a client is told information is made up but they use it anyway, that’s on the client. Although I’d argue that an LLM shouldn’t be in the business of making shit up unless specifically instructed to do so by the client.

        • kadu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It doesn’t have “3 million bits of info” on a specific topic, or even if it did, it wouldn’t be able to directly measure it. It’s worth reading a bit about how LLMs work behind the hood, because although somewhat dense if you’re new to the concepts, you come out knowing a lot more about what to expect when using them, what the limitations actually are and how to use them better if you decide to go that route.

          • TechLich@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            You could do this with logprobs. The language model itself has basically no real insight into its confidence but there’s more that you can get out of the model besides just the text.

            The problem is that those probabilities are really “how confident are you that this text should come next in this conversation” not “how confident are you that this text is true/accurate.” It’s a fundamental limitation at the moment I think.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      It doesn‘t know that it doesn‘t know because it doesn‘t actually know anything. Most models are trained on posts from the internet like this one where people rarely ever just chime in to admit they don‘t have an answer anyway. If you don‘t know something you either silently search the web for an answer or ask.

      So since users are the ones asking ChatGPT, the LLM mimics the role of a person that knows the answer. It only makes sense AI is a „confidently wrong“ powerhouse.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      It wouldnt finish a lyric for me yesterday because it was copyrighted. I sid it was public domain and it said “You are absolutely right, given its release date it is under copyright protection”

      Wtf

      • int32@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        yeah, there are guardrails but for copyright, not for bullshit. ig they think copyrighted content is worse than bullshit.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      In the end it’s a word generator that has been trained so much it uses facts often enough to be convincing. That’s its basic architecture.

      You can ask it to give a confidence level to have an indication of how sure it is of the answer.

    • JayGray91🐉🍕@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Someone I know (not close enough to even call an “internet friend”) formed a sadistic bond with chatGPT and will force it to apologize and admit being stupid or something like that when he didn’t get the answer he’s looking for.

      I guess that’s better than doing it to a person I suppose.