270
I wish I was as bold as these authors.
(discuss.tchncs.de)
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/18077383
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
270 points (96.2% liked)
Fuck AI
815 readers
126 users here now
A place for all those who loathe machine-learning to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
What are those situations?
Educating children about LLMs for the most part. There are also religious institutions that would like to be informed about LLMs as well
Which ones? The ones that allow raping of children by their leaders?
Or the ones that promote violence in their holy books, like killings and torturing to death? Oh, but the profanity! Not the profanity.
I am aware that Lemmy has an anti-religious bent but the fact is that religious people are part of this world, some even in places of power. Shouldn't they also be informed about how LLMs are prone to bullshit as well? Though if they are OK with the word "bullshit" then it's all fine by me at the end of the day
I didn't downvote you, by the way.
But I'm curious: are you still talking about LLMs discussions that include profanity?
Or are you talking about something different, the fact that LLMs can spew bullshit, and that religious congregators should be informed about this?
I'm talking about the latter. Religious people often use LLMs as well (https://apnews.com/article/germany-church-protestants-chatgpt-ai-sermon-651f21c24cfb47e3122e987a7263d348). Their knowledge is likely limited to ChatGPT so they're likely to be vulnerable to these things. I think one of the things that worry me the most is that these people may take LLM bullshit at face value, or even worse, take them as a "divine commands".
I don't follow how you went from being concerned about using profanity in research papers because of audiences such as religious communities, to being concerned about LLMs spewing inaccurate things.
Has your original question always been about the latter?
Yes, I was curious about about if experts want to convey the concept of LLM bullshit to certain audiences such as children's settings (which has been solved now) or religious clergy, they'll use the term "bullshit" or not. I apologize if I have miscommunicated that intention in my initial comment, and I always look forward to how to communicate better
Ah, that makes more sense now.
What is the danger of explaining the word "bullshit" to children? Of course like many topics it should be explained carefully e.g. reading Frankfurt before discussing this specific paper.
And religion can politely go fuck itself when it comes to deciding what words professional academics use. They did that long enough already... But actually I know a few religious philosophers and they use the term without complaints.
Understandable, though we should also find ways to explain complex academic concepts, like LLM bullshit, to the general public, including those with strong religious beliefs that may be sensitive to these words. The fact that some religious philosophers already use this term without issue shows that it's possible to bridge this gap.
Most children are eventually educated on these words. Usually by 1st grade, if I remember right.
What you're thinking of is what parents think they want reality to be, not reality.
You have a point. I did remember being told that the word "shit" was a curse word that I should always avoid. But that was in the 2000s, so that sentiment may have changed now (that was in the United States and now I've been living in Indonesia so I don't know the evolution of languages there anymore). I know that the word "queer" used to be a slur as well. Let's see if the word "bullshit" becomes normalized in society as the years go on
BS: Bologna Sandwich. "That's a load of bologna!"