• Veraticus@lib.lgbtOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No one is saying “they’re useless.” But they are indeed bullshit machines, for the reasons the author (and you yourself) acknowledged. Their purposes is to choose likely words. That likely and correct are frequently the same shouldn’t blind us to the fact that correctness is a coincidence.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That likely and correct are frequently the same shouldn’t blind us to the fact that correctness is a coincidence.

      That’s an absurd statement. Do you have any experience with machine learning?

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, it’s been my career for the last two decades and before that was the focus of my education. The idea that “correctness is a coincidence” is absurd and either fails to understand how training works or rejects the entire premise of large data revealing functional relationships in the underlying processes.

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbtOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or you’ve simply misunderstood what I’ve said despite your two decades of experience and education.

            If you train a model on a bad dataset, will it give you correct data?

            If you ask a question a model it doesn’t have enough data to be confident about an answer, will it still confidently give you a correct answer?

            And, more importantly, is it trained to offer CORRECT data, or is it trained to return words regardless of whether or not that data is correct?

            I mean, it’s like you haven’t even thought about this.