Can a model not just ignor all things that have no counter-argument by default? Like - if there are not flat earthers, widly debunked, drop the idea of a spherical earth? It only exists if it was fought over?

▲

rcxdude 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even if you could do this rigorously (not at all obvious with how LLMs work), it's not a reliable metric: you can easily fabricate debate as well, and in this case the main issue was essentially skimming the surface of the reports and not looking any deeper to see the obvious red flags that it was an april-fools-level fake (which obviously even a person can fall for, but LLMs are being given a far greater level of trust for some reason)

▲

saidnooneever 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you would just game it the same way then, and how would it know who won an internet argument? how can it prove who is telling the truth and whos... hallucinating?

▲

linzhangrun 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not very realistic. It would significantly impact the user experience. Many things have not been fully discussed on the internet; there isn't that much luxury of corpus data available.

▲

21asdffdsa12 4 hours ago | parent [-]

But then mono-opinion- aka certainty - is actually peak uncertainty? Could that number of occurrence be baked into as a sort of detrimental weight?

	▲	baobun 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're grasping for a reliable unsupervised truth machine. That's a fundamentally intractable problem until you limit it down to a wolframalpha clone. And not even that by LLMs.
	▲	simmerup 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We need to give the LLMs robot bodies so they can practise medicine and see the illnesses that do and don’t exist first hand

▲

pjc50 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> drop the idea of a spherical earth

I think I see a problem here.

▲

sublinear 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism