Here’s a good & readable summary paper to pin your critiques on

  • jaden
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah I just don’t see how it’s really any different from a human in that respect

    • itappearsthat@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Humans are capable of metacognition: having levels of confidence about the accuracy of their beliefs. They are also capable of communicating this uncertainty, usually through tone & phrasing.

      • jaden
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I suspect that arises from a sort of adversarial or autoregressive interplay btw areas of the brain. I do observe early teens displaying very low metacognition around accuracy of what they say. It’s a true stereotype that they will pick an argument almost arbitrarily and parrot talking points from online. I imagine that if llms can do that, they might just need an RLHF training flow that mirrors stuff like arguing for BS with your parents or experiencing failure as a result of misinformation. That’s why I think it’s a matter of instruction fine-tuning rather than some fundamental attribute of LLMs.

        It’s probably part of developmental instincts in humans to develop better metacognition by going through an argumentative phase like that.