23 ms·

I think Meta.ai needs to add a disclaimer below the chat input box similar to ChatGPT: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information."

mcphage 2y ago
> Consider checking important information. How do you check important information, when it's all wrong? And when companies are pushing LLMs as where you go to check this information?
- kergonath 2y ago
  > How do you check important information, when it's all wrong? It's not very helpful to say that it's all wrong. It isn't the case, otherwise there would not be any issue. Whether the right answer is produced by reasoning or a statistical model does not take the answer not-right.
barbazoo 2y ago
Good idea, that'll make sure people don't share hallucinations as facts /s
Thrymr 2y ago
But basically nothing in these answers was "right". It was merely plausible. "Important information" or not, what is the point of this garbage?
beginning_end 2y ago
The disclaimer really should be much tougher: "Every LLM consistently makes mistakes. The mistakes will often look very plausible. NEVER TRUST ANY LLM OUTPUT."
- willsmith72 2y ago
  > NEVER TRUST ANY LLM OUTPUT that doesn't sound like a helpful attitude. everything you read might be wrong, llm or not - it's just a numbers game. with gpt3 i'll trust the output a certain amount. it's still useful for some tasks but not that many. gpt4 i'll trust the output more
  - hbn 2y ago
    LLMs are impressively good at confidently stating false information as fact though. They use niche terminology from a field, cite made-up sources and events, and speak to the layman as convincingly knowledgable on a subject as anyone else who's actually an expert. People are trusting LLM output more than they should be. And search engines that people have historically used to find information are trying to replace results with LLM output. Most people don't know how LLMs work, or how their search engine is getting the information it's telling them. Many people won't be able to tell the difference between the scraped web snippets Google has shown for years versus a response from an LLM. It's not even an occasional bug with LLMs, it's practically the rule. They don't know anything so they'll never say "I don't know" or give any indication of when something they say is trustworthy or not.
    - willsmith72 2y ago
      at least the llm (for now) doesn't have an agenda the top result on google is literally just the result of how hard someone worked on their seo. they might not "hallucinate", but a company can certainly use strong seo skills to push whatever product/opinion best suits them.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    But it’s correct. Without independent verification, you can never, ever trust anything that the magic robot tells you. Of course this may not matter so much for very low-stakes applications, but it is still the case.
chimeracoder 2y ago
A disclaimer isn't about solving a problem; it's about absolving responsibility.
patrick-fitz 2y ago
They have now added a disclaimer: "Messages are generated by AI and may be inaccurate or inappropriate."

mcphage 2y ago

> Consider checking important information. How do you check important information, when it's all wrong? And when companies are pushing LLMs as where you go to check this information?

kergonath 2y ago
> How do you check important information, when it's all wrong? It's not very helpful to say that it's all wrong. It isn't the case, otherwise there would not be any issue. Whether the right answer is produced by reasoning or a statistical model does not take the answer not-right.

barbazoo 2y ago

Good idea, that'll make sure people don't share hallucinations as facts /s

Thrymr 2y ago

But basically nothing in these answers was "right". It was merely plausible. "Important information" or not, what is the point of this garbage?

beginning_end 2y ago

The disclaimer really should be much tougher: "Every LLM consistently makes mistakes. The mistakes will often look very plausible. NEVER TRUST ANY LLM OUTPUT."

willsmith72 2y ago
> NEVER TRUST ANY LLM OUTPUT that doesn't sound like a helpful attitude. everything you read might be wrong, llm or not - it's just a numbers game. with gpt3 i'll trust the output a certain amount. it's still useful for some tasks but not that many. gpt4 i'll trust the output more
- hbn 2y ago
  LLMs are impressively good at confidently stating false information as fact though. They use niche terminology from a field, cite made-up sources and events, and speak to the layman as convincingly knowledgable on a subject as anyone else who's actually an expert. People are trusting LLM output more than they should be. And search engines that people have historically used to find information are trying to replace results with LLM output. Most people don't know how LLMs work, or how their search engine is getting the information it's telling them. Many people won't be able to tell the difference between the scraped web snippets Google has shown for years versus a response from an LLM. It's not even an occasional bug with LLMs, it's practically the rule. They don't know anything so they'll never say "I don't know" or give any indication of when something they say is trustworthy or not.
  - willsmith72 2y ago
    at least the llm (for now) doesn't have an agenda the top result on google is literally just the result of how hard someone worked on their seo. they might not "hallucinate", but a company can certainly use strong seo skills to push whatever product/opinion best suits them.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  But it’s correct. Without independent verification, you can never, ever trust anything that the magic robot tells you. Of course this may not matter so much for very low-stakes applications, but it is still the case.

chimeracoder 2y ago

A disclaimer isn't about solving a problem; it's about absolving responsibility.

patrick-fitz 2y ago

They have now added a disclaimer: "Messages are generated by AI and may be inaccurate or inappropriate."