This is the problem with training LLMs on Reddit. It doesn’t know how to say “I don’t know”. So, like Redditors…. It just makes shit up.

I congratulate you, and think you should be proud of overcoming your inherent invertebrate self, to not only be a prolific poster on Lemmy, but also to be an entrepreneur, author, and business consultant.

Truly you are one in a squidillion.

So your work revolves around bringing entrepreneurs down?

I am also unique-except-one. Mine is similarly unrecognizable.

Which version of ChatGPT?

If you try to start learning how they work, the first thing you realize is that hallucinations are fundamental to how the technology works. Of course they are unfixable. That's literally how they work.

They're broken clocks that happen to be right more than just twice a day, but still broken nonetheless.

It's an inherent issue with deep learning. Awareness of this among people who are regularly using these tools is very low, which is troubling.

https://umdearborn.edu/news/ais-mysterious-black-box-problem-explained

You're reading one right now?

When they hallucinate, they don't do it consistently, so one option is running the same query through multiple times (with different "expert" base prompts), or through different LLMs and then rejecting it as "I don't know" if there's too much disagreement between them. The Q* approach is similar, but baked in. This should dramatically reduce hallucinations.

Edit: added bit about different experts

they would not be banned outright. They just can't be used to process data about customers.

But an ai furry porn generator doesn't necessarily process customer data

1. If the world had opted out of the ICE early, maybe we wouldn't be in quite the global warming situation we're in.

2. LLMs are still a novelty product that can barely perform their novelty. Comparing them to the wildly useful and game changing ICE is not terribly accurate.

The technology has to follow the legal requirements, not the other way around.

This is something that really needs to be taught better, at least in the US.

GDPR doesn't mean that LLMs are forbidden in the EU, but it does mean that the companies that create them may be liable for damages. That said, the damages must be real. Actual damages is somewhat cut and dry (e.g., ChatGPT publishes defamatory information about you, and someone relies on it to your detriment), but GDPR also contemplates damages for distress (e.g., emotional).

If that’s true then the legal requirements will have to be changed ...

I think this position needs to be rejected in the strongest possible terms. Our response to any emerging technology should not be "It's too good not to have, so who cares if people lose their rights?" The right to privacy and with it the right to control one's likeness, name, and personal data is a much easier right to conceptually trade away than, say, the right to bodily integrity, but I think we've seen enough dystopian sci-fi at this point to understand where the intersections might lie between other rights and correspondingly miraculous technologies. [And after all, without the combustion engine we probably wouldn't be staring down the barrel of climate change right now.]

Should we, for instance, do away with the right to bodily integrity if it means everyone gets chipped shortly after birth? [The analogy to circumcision is unintentional but not lost on me.] After all, the chips mean that we can locate missing and abducted children easily and at trivial cost. They also mean that we no longer need to carry money or proxies for money. Crime is at an all-time low. Worth it, right? After all, the procedure is "minimally invasive."

The point is, rights have to be sacrosanct. They need to be the first consideration, and they need to be non-negotiable. If a technology needs those rights to bend or give way in order to exist, then it should not exist. If it's of sufficient benefit to society, then it can be made to exist in a way that preserves those rights, and those who are unwilling to create it in such a way should suffer the sanction of law.

Or on the other hand, maybe we have to admit that these technologies were released before they were finished, and that was a dangerous decision. It's now been well documented that chat gpt and similar technologies were rushed to the public against the advice of some of their developers.

The developers will need to devise ways for the LLMs to understand their own training data.