936

I wish I was as bold as these authors. (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 4 months ago by jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

108 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] iamkindasomeone@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago

Your statement on no way of fact checking is not a 100% correct as developers found ways to ground LLMs, e.g., by prepending context pulled from „real time“ sources of truth (e.g., search engines). This data is then incorporated into the prompt as context data. Well obviously this is kind of cheating and not baked into the LLM itself, however it can be pretty accurate for a lot of use cases.

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Does using authoritative sources is fool proof? For example, is everything written in Wikipedia factually correct? I don’t believe so unless I actually check it. Also, what about reddit or stack overflow? Can they be considered factually correct? To some extent, yes. But not completely. That is why most of these LLMs give such arbitrary answers. They extrapolate on information they have no way knowing or understanding.

[-] iamkindasomeone@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

I don’t quite understand what you mean by extrapolate on information. LLMs have no model of what an information or the truth is. However, factual information can be passed into the context, the way Bing does it.