undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmistermann2y ago0 comments

There are important differences between how humans and LLM's think though - one stark difference is that LLM's can almost always "realize" when they are hallucinating, and recover without aversion. Humans on the other hand often simply cannot recover (on some topics, never), and even hallucinate even more strongly when they are notified of the problem.

I will be surprised if we are not studying this phenomenon within 5 years.

0 comments

bayindirh2y ago

Their hallucination detection doesn't always result in an accurate answer, though.

On the other hand, many people indeed realize they hallucinate, but can't accept that due to plethora of reasons. Being able to accept that one is hallucinating about something is always shown as a weakness in the society, except in very few niche subcommunities (e.g.: engineering).

What will be the natural reaction of these LLMs if this phenomenon is highly penalized, now that's an interesting question. They'll converge to humans, I may say, if the models we produce are mirroring human brains that accurately. The nature is deterministic. You can't expect two copies of the same organism behave differently at a macro scale.

mistermannOP2y ago

> Their hallucination detection doesn't always result in an accurate answer, though.

You are correct, but what is that word "though" doing there? Your fact is not inconsistent with mine...and while this "is" "pedantic" from a cultural perspective, it is not from a logical perspective.

> On the other hand, many people indeed realize they hallucinate, but can't accept that due to plethora of reasons.

LLM's on the other hand are emotionless, and breeze right through valid epistemic challenges...almost like it has split brain or multiple personality "disorder". ChatGPT will happily identify epistemic flaws in the very text it just finished generating, all you have to do is ask it!

> Being able to accept that one is hallucinating about something is always shown as a weakness in the society, except in very few niche subcommunities (e.g.: engineering).

Are we in such a community now? Because look at some of the confident "factual" comments in this thread, about (currently) objectively unknowable propositions.

Or, consider historic screw ups like the Challenger explosion, climate change, etc. I doubt all of these cases lacked even one voice of reason among the groupthink.

> What will be the natural reaction of these LLMs if this phenomenon is highly penalized, now that's an interesting question. They'll converge to humans, I may say, if the models we produce are mirroring human brains that accurately.

Maybe, if they (the publicly available ones) are allowed to . I am very concerned about bad actors getting their hands on superior models that they discovered in ways that may not be reproduced elsewhere.

>The nature is deterministic.

My thinking is that their nature derives from reality, and reality seems to be anything but deterministic to me, if you include the metaphysical realm (things that include the effects of human consciousness, which science's theory of "everything" excludes).

> You can't expect two copies of the same organism behave differently at a macro scale.

Oh? I regularly see people not only expecting diametrically opposed things, but outright declaring them as facts. Just watch the news, open any social media site, whatever...it is ubiquitous, thus unseen.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse