179
Race for AI is making Hindenburg-style disaster ‘a real risk’, says leading expert
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
179 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
81532 readers
4400 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If everything that I've seen in the past has said that 1+1 is 4, then sure
I'm going to say that 1+1 is 4. I will say that 1+1 is 4 and be confident in that.
But if I've seen multiple sources of information that state differing things
say, half of the information that I've seen says that 1+1 is 4 and the other half says that 1+1 is 2, then I can expose that to the user.
I do think that Aceticon does raise a fair point, that fully capturing uncertainty probably needs a higher level of understanding than an LLM directly generating text from its knowledge store is going to have. For example, having many ways of phrasing a response will also reduce confidence in the response, even if both phrasings are semantically compatible. Being on the edge between saying that, oh...an object is "white" or "eggshell" will also reduce the confidence derived from token probability, even if the two responses are both semantically more-or-less identical in the context of the given conversation.
There's probably enough information available to an LLM to do heuristics as to whether two different sentences are semantically-equivalent, but you wouldn't be able to do that efficiently with a trivial change.
You do realise that prompts to and responses from the LLM are not as simple as what you wrote "1+1=?". The context window is growing for a reason. And LLMs dont have two dimensional probability of the next token?