• 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.