supamanc

joined 2 years ago
[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The point is, the LLM is not 'lying' to you. It's showing you information. It doesn't 'know' whether the information is true or not. It also doesn't 'care'. Because it is a statistical model and is incapable of those things. And if you scroll back to my initial point, I said "technically, it's not lying, because lying requires intent to deceive, and LLMs don't have intent"

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

No, you are proving my point here. You say 'they' as in the publishers/owners/printers of the newspaper. You don't blame 'it' the literal, physical piece of paper you are holding in your hands.

In the same way that you would not say a clock was lying to you if it displays the wrong time.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

If a newspaper prints lies you don't say the physical piece of pulped up tree you are holding is lying to you, you say the author is.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

An LLM is a statistical modeling tool. It doesn't have goals. It can't have intentions. It just outputs according to an algorithm.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Oooh, philosophy! I disagree. I think that if a person programs a LLM to give disinformation, that's all it is. A lie giving misinformation knowing that's it's disinformation, intending do deceive. The LLM doesn't know what's true or false. It doesn't intend anything, because it is not a conscious entity. The person who programmed it can be lying by disseminating false information, the LLM cannot, any more than a broken clock or thermometer is 'lying' about the time or temperature.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 26 points 18 hours ago (18 children)

Not technically lies, as to lie there has to be an intent to deceive. LLMs don't have any intentions.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Right. But have you ever actually interact with a) children or b) addicts?. Both groups well known for being totally reasonable and receptive to logical arguments! Trying to persuade them that the thing they love is actually causing them harm is nigh on impossible. 'I'm not concerned about her welfare, I'm just being mean'. 'other kids may get addicted, but I'm fine, totally in control'. 'if it was bad there would be laws' Etc etc.

I'm not Australian, but I can at least referenced the attempt, and the court case in LA when telling the kid to put the tablet down. I'm not saying the law is the end of the matter, but just saying educate your kids is also far from the end, and is the line the social media companies emphasis because it moves the blame from them to parents

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Dunno, I'm not the one paid to come up with solutions. But, at the very least efforts like this teach kids that there is a problem. Like, yeah, we can easily circumvent the measures, but the gov still thinks it necessary to implement them.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (5 children)

But the idea that we just need education is ridiculous. It's the exact defence that the social media platforms espous, because they know it's bullshit and ineffective.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (12 children)

That's a bit like saying 'there is a problem with smack/nicotine/alcohol addiction, but the solution is not restriction, it's education'. You can educate all you want, but very clever people make a lot of money by saying 'fuck your education'.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Further to this, there isn't a 'launch the nuclear weapons' application which controls things. Windows is used for the day to day admin - producing the paperwork required in any organisation - but the actual control systems, for the submarine, the weapons the reactor etc are not running off windows.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

This is the question!

view more: next ›