An LLMs “intent” is always to give you a plausible response even if it doesn’t have the “knowledge”. The same behaviour in a human would be classed as lying IMHO.
But you wouldn’t call it lying if a person tells you something they think is true but turns out to be false. Lying means intentionally giving out false information. LLMs don’t have intentions.
Depends which definition of bullshit you use, I guess.
Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what they say is true or false.
the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what they say is true or false.
That’s another way to say “intent is irrelevant”.
It’s also effectively the perfect definition of LLM output. Content for the sole purpose of looking the part with absolutely no consideration for reality.
It is intended (by the designer) to persuade. It’s intended to persuade you that it’s something a human would say.
Ignoring that you’re trying to claim one dude’s definition of bullshit as the law, that one dude’s definition is an exact flawless match for what LLMs are.
An LLMs “intent” is always to give you a plausible response even if it doesn’t have the “knowledge”. The same behaviour in a human would be classed as lying IMHO.
But you wouldn’t call it lying if a person tells you something they think is true but turns out to be false. Lying means intentionally giving out false information. LLMs don’t have intentions.
You would call what they said bullshit though.
Intent is irrelevant. Bullshit is bullshit.
Depends which definition of bullshit you use, I guess.
Wiki
That’s another way to say “intent is irrelevant”.
It’s also effectively the perfect definition of LLM output. Content for the sole purpose of looking the part with absolutely no consideration for reality.
Quoting out of context is not going to score you any points
It is intended (by the designer) to persuade. It’s intended to persuade you that it’s something a human would say.
Ignoring that you’re trying to claim one dude’s definition of bullshit as the law, that one dude’s definition is an exact flawless match for what LLMs are.
According to you, I presume? Or can you back that up somehow?
LLMs were developed to simulate human-like understanding and generation of language. They’re called large language models for a reason.
No, they weren’t. There was never at any point any theoretical possibility that an LLM would resemble understanding in any way.
…but if they don’t know I expect them to say so. An LLM isn’t trustworthy until it says “I don’t know”.