https://github.com/mukhal/intrinsic-source-citation
This is not something that can be LoRa finetuned after the pretraining step.
What we need is a human curated benchmark for different types of source-aware training, to allow competition, and an extra column in the most popular leaderboards, including it in the Average column, to incentivice AI companies to train in a source aware way, of course this will instantly invalidate the black-box-veil LLM companies love to hide behind so as not to credit original authors and content creators, they prefer regulators to believe such a thing can not be done.
In meantime such regulators are not thinking creatively and are clearly just looking for ways to tax AI companies, and in turn hiding behind copyright complications as an excuse to tax the flow of money wherever they smell it.
Source aware training also has the potential to decentralize search!
But I find the anthropomorphization and "AGI" narrative really creepy and grifty. Such a waste that that's the direction it's going.
And I wouldn't say lazy at _all_. I would say efficient. Even evolutionary features that look "bad" on the surface can still make sense if you look at the wider system they're a part of. If our tailbone caused us problems, then we'd evolve it away, but instead we have a vestigial part that remains because there are no forces driving its removal.
But the issue is with calling finished products what are laboratory partials. "Oh look, they invented a puppet" // "Oh, nice!" // "It's alive..."
In terms of people thinking LLMs are smarter than they really are, well...that's just people. Who hate each other for skin colour and sexuality, who believe that throwing salt over your shoulder wards away bad luck; we're still biological at the end of the day, we're not machines. Yet.
That is definitely not true.
In the context of the comment chain I replied to, and the behaviour in question, any statement by an LLM pretending to be be capable of self-awareness/metacognition is also necessarily a lie. "I should be more careful", "I sincerely apologize", "I realize", "Thank you for bringing this to my attention", etc.
The problem is the anthropomorphization. Since it pretends to be like a person, if you ascribe intention to it then I think it is most accurately described as always lying. If you don't ascribe intention to it, then it's just a messy PRNG that aligns with reality an impressive amount of the time, and words like "lying" have no meaning. But again, it's presented and marketed as if it's a trustworthy sapient intelligence.
Some parts seemingly stopped at "output something plausible", but it does not seem theoretically impossible to direct the output towards "adhere to the truth", if a world model is there.
We would still need to implement the "reason on your world model and refine it" part, for the purpose of AGI - meanwhile, fixing the "impersonation" fumble ("probabilistic calculus say your interlocutor should offer stochastic condolences") would be a decent move. After a while with present chatbots it seems clear that "this is writing a fiction, not answering questions".
Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types
Choose any five wikilinks. Skim their distinct functions and pathologies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network
Evolution's many things, but maybe most of all lazy. Human intelligence has dozens of distinct neuron types and at least hundreds of differentiated regions/neural subnetworks because we need all those parts in order to be both sentient and sapient. If you lesion parts of the human brain, you lose the associated functions, and eventually end up with what we'd call mental/neurological illnesses. Delusions, obsessions, solipsism, amorality, shakes, self-contradiction, aggression, manipulation, etc.
LLMs don't have any of those parts at all. They only have pattern-matching. They can only lie, because they don't have the sensory, object permanence, and memory faculties to conceive of an immutable external "truth"/reality. They can only be hypocritical, because they don't have the internal identity and introspective abilities to be able to have consistent values. They cannot apologize in substance, because they have neither the theory of mind and self-awareness to understand what they did wrong, the social motivation to care, nor the neuroplasticity to change and be better. They can only ever be manipulative, because they don't have emotions to express honestly. And I think it speaks to a not-atypical Silicon Valley arrogance to pretend that they can replicate "intelligence", without apparently ever considering a high-school-level philosophy or psychology course to understand what actually lets human intelligence tick.
At most they're mechanical psychopaths [1]. They might have some uses, but never outweighing the dangers for anything serious. Some of the individuals who think this technology is anything remotely close to "intelligent" have probably genuinely fallen for it. The rest, I suppose, see nothing wrong because they've created a tool in their own image…
[1]: I use this term loosely. "Psychopathy" is not a diagnosis in the DSM-V, but psychopathic traits are associated with multiple disorders that share similar characteristics.