We need to tell people ChatGPT will lie to them, not debate linguistics

Re:We need to tell people ChatGPT will lie to them, not deba... by nfw2 on Friday April 07, 2023 @07:45PM (#35488651)

It was not a confident statement, at least not the way ChatGPT is confident.

There are multiple ways the commenter conditioned their statement: > Based on my understanding > it is PROBABLY very close

The author makes it clear that there is a uncertainty and that if their understanding is wrong, the prediction will not hold.

If ChatGPT did any of the things the commenter did, the problem wouldn't exist. Making uncertain statements is fine as long as it is clear the uncertainty is acknowledged. ChatGPT has no concept of uncertainty. It casually constructs false statements to same way it constructs real knowledge backed by evidence. That's the problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need to tell people ChatGPT will lie to them, not deba... by motoxpro on Friday April 07, 2023 @10:48PM (#35490006)

Based on my understanding, it is the year 2035.

I don't think that statement is any better. The only reason you would follow up is because you have prior knowledge that it is wrong.

Based on my understanding of multiplication, 324113 * 23244 = 138492923

Is the above better?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need to tell people ChatGPT will lie to them, not deba... by shjake on Saturday April 08, 2023 @03:00AM (#35491186)

> Is the above better?

No. It is tangential though.

[ Parent | on HN ]