> The real question is what I, the human, get out of reading those words
So then you agree with the OP that an LLM is not intelligent in the same way that Google Maps is not intelligent? That seems to be where your argument leads but you're replying in a way that makes me think you are disagreeing with the op.
I guess I am both agreeing and disagreeing. The exact same problem is true for words in a book. Are the words in a lexicon true, false, or do they not have a truth value?
The words in the book are true or false, making the author correct or incorrect. The question being posed is whether the output of an LLM has an "author," since it's not authored by a single human in the traditional sense. If so, the LLM is an agent of some kind; if not, it's not.
If you're comparing the output of an LLM to a lexicon, you're agreeing with the person you originally replied to. He's arguing that an LLM is incapable of being true or false because of the manner in which its utterances are created, i.e. not by a mind.
So only a mind is capable of something making signs that are either true or false? Is a properly calibrated thermometer that reads "true" if the temperature is over 25C incapable of being true? But isn't this question ridiculous in the first place? Isn't a mind required to judge whether or not something is true, regardless of how this was signaled?
Read again; I said he’s arguing that the LLM (i.e. thermometer in your example) is the thing that can’t be true or false. Its utterances (the readings of your thermometer) can be.
This would be unlike a human, who can be right or wrong independently of an utterance, because they have a mind and beliefs.
I’ll cut to the chase. You’re hung up on the definition of words as opposed to the utility of words.
That classical or quantum mechanics are at all useful depends on the truthfulness of their propositions. If we cared about the process then we let the non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics enter into the judgement of the usefulness of the science.
The better question to ask is if a tool, be it a book, a thermometer, or an LLM are useful. Error rates affect utility which means that distinctions between correct and incorrect signals are more important than attempts to define arbitrary labels for the tools themselves.
You’re attempting to discount a tool based on everything other than the utility.
Ah okay I understand, I think. So basically that's solipsism applied to a LLM?
I think that's taking things a bit too far though. You can define hallucination in a more useful way. For instance you can say 'hallucination' is when the information in the input doesn't make it to the output. It is possible to make this precise, but it might be impractically hard to measure it.
An extreme version would be a En->FR translation model that translates every sentence into 'omelette du fromage'. Even if it's right the input didn't actually affect the output one bit so it's a hallucination. Compared to a model that actually changes the output when the input changes it's clearly worse.
Conceivably you could check if the probability of a sentence actually decreases if the input changes (which it should if it's based on the input), but given the nonsense models generate at a temperature of 1 I don't quite trust them to assign meaningful probabilities to anything.
No, your constant output example isn’t what people are talking about with “hallucination.” It’s not about destroying information from the input, in the sense that it you asked me a question and I just ignored you, I’m not in general hallucinating. Hallucinating is more about sampling from a distribution which extends beyond what is factually true or actually exists, such as citing a non-existent paper, or inventing a historical figure.
> It's offering support for the claim that LLMs hallucinate 100% of the time, even when their hallucinations happen to be true.
Well this makes the term "hallucinate" completely useless for any sort of distinction. The word then becomes nothing more than a disparaging term for an LLM.
Not really. It distinguishes LLM output from human output even though they look the same sometimes. The process by which something comes into existence is a valid distinction to make, even if the two processes happen to produce the same thing sometimes.
It makes sense to do so in the same way that it’s useful to distinguish quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, even if they make the same predictions sometimes.
A proposition of any kind of mechanics is what can be true or false. The calculations are not what makes up the truth of a proposition, as you’ve pointed out.
So then you agree with the OP that an LLM is not intelligent in the same way that Google Maps is not intelligent? That seems to be where your argument leads but you're replying in a way that makes me think you are disagreeing with the op.