TechTakes

1491 readers

159 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 1 September 2024 (awful.systems)

submitted 4 months ago by gerikson@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] ovid@fosstodon.org -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

@froztbyte As for the issue of transparency, it's ridiculously hard in real life. For example, for my website, I used a format I created called "blogdown", which is Markdown combined with a template language to make it easy to write articles. I never cited my sources, nor do I think I could. From decades of programming, how can I cite everything I've ever learned from?

As for how AI is transparent for arriving at decisions, this falls into a separate category and requires different thinking.

[–] ovid@fosstodon.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

@froztbyte Regarding decision transparency, I created an "Honest Resume Scanner" GPT (https://chatgpt.com/g/g-0incYn7v7-honest-resume-scanner) and the only prompt suggestion is "Ask me to share my instructions." That lets users see the verbatim prompt.

When it offers evaluations, it does explain carefully why it rejects a particular candidate (but it won't recommend any). I think it's a step in the right direction, but more work is needed.

[–] earthquake@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You're not just confident that asking chatGPT to explain it's inner workings works exactly like a --verbose flag, you're so sure that's what happening that it apparently does not occur to you to explain why you think the output is not just more plausible text prediction based on its training weights with no particular insight into the chatGPT black box.

Is this confidence from an intimate knowledge of how LLMs work, or because the output you saw from doing this looks really really plausible? Try and give an explanation without projecting agency onto the LLM, as you did with "explain carefully why it rejects"