[HN Gopher] MDN can now automatically lie to people seeking tech...
___________________________________________________________________
MDN can now automatically lie to people seeking technical
information
Author : robin_reala
Score : 90 points
Date : 2023-06-30 21:05 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| readyplayernull wrote:
| Now if only an AI could explain to me those intractable terms and
| contracts of BigCo's. /s
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| https://tosdr.org has existed for years before the current LLM
| wave
| jancsika wrote:
| I've never witnessed a github issue where the comments are
| unanimous like this one. So far there isn't a single naysayer.
|
| Could probably build fairly successful political party off of
| this once-in-a-lifetime momentum. :)
| thesnide wrote:
| This just looks like the poster child of "hell is made of good
| intentions".
|
| It may look seemingly harmless at first, even a good idea.
|
| But you'll seed doubt. As that will erode the value of the whole
| site. Which was its main asset.
| brudgers wrote:
| * * *
| joshka wrote:
| @dang: Title is clickbait. Perhaps replace with something like:
|
| Bug report: MDN's AI Explain feature generates false explanations
| the-printer wrote:
| This is not a good look for what is the de facto go-to (from my
| perspective) reference guide for web development. I'm not too
| crazy about MDN, but I expected better from them.
| samtho wrote:
| Given the clear nature of GPT to simply spew things that sound
| "right", why is a technically proficient organization such as
| this one jumping headfirst into integrating this with their
| products where it is clear that is not yet up to this task?
| gAI wrote:
| Did the AI Explain button replace a more reliable feature?
| cyanydeez wrote:
| With placebos, the correct question is: does it displace more
| efficacious procedures.
|
| I'd say yes. Even if something is a placebo, it's ability to
| displace better solutions is the problem
| gAI wrote:
| I don't use MDN. I'm just asking if they removed something
| when they added this feature.
|
| Characterizing LLMs as placebos or "designed to produce
| gibberish" is inaccurate.
| tough wrote:
| They could for example only use LLM's to match query's and
| use as source for responses like many other -docs as AI-
| implementations do, wondering why Mozilla wouldn't do
| exactly the same. as Hallucinations are a normal occurance
| if not doing so.
| gAI wrote:
| I agree it's an odd implementation and seems bandwagon-y
| in this context. Maybe it's the first step in a larger
| plan?
| cyanydeez wrote:
| I compare them to placebos because they can be effective
| and they can have zero active ingredient.
| gAI wrote:
| That's a fairer comparison that I read it as. I'd say
| they're more like a pharmacy, usually dispensing
| medicine. But we don't really know how half the medicine
| works, and sometimes it hurts people.
| mike_hock wrote:
| Relevant username.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| soared wrote:
| I don't really understand viewpoints like these.
|
| The submitter knows the AI isn't lying and the submitter is being
| purposefully obtuse in order to drive controversy.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Hallucinating, lying. What difference does it make when it's
| giving you an inaccurate, possibly made up explanation of an
| API?
| feoren wrote:
| > The submitter knows the AI isn't lying
|
| You've somehow internalized something as "obvious to everyone"
| that's actually very wrong and dangerous about AI. _Of course_
| the AI is lying. Or, perhaps a better term would be
| "bullshitting", defined as "sounding convincing while having no
| regard for the truth". By that definition, bullshitting is all
| LLMs _ever do_.
| gAI wrote:
| That's an ungenerous way of describing direct access to
| semantic space. gAI is creative. Rules-based AI is logical.
| We need them both.
| slotrans wrote:
| It may be "ungenerous" but it's _accurate_. Unlike the
| output of LLMs.
| [deleted]
| ImaCake wrote:
| This is a good point. The problem is that most people
| simply don't care about these nuances. If the AI
| hallucinates or is wrong, then in their eyes it is lying.
|
| It doesn't matter if that opinion is wrong because its
| still the opinion that matters.
| manquer wrote:
| The accusation is not that AI is lying it is that MDN is,
| especially given they are showing it at the same level as
| curated source with reputation for high degree of quality
| without full disclosure at error rates to expect
| thorum wrote:
| I actually think this feature would be fine if implemented
| better. GPT-4 is perfectly capable of accurately explaining what
| a short code block does if you prompt it with relevant
| documentation... which MDN has in abundance, but isn't using, for
| some reason.
|
| The mistakes seem to be (1) using GPT 3.5 instead because it's
| cost effective, even though GPT 3.5 has severe issues with
| hallucination, and (2) not including context from the surrounding
| article into the prompt.
|
| Also, since I assume MDN has a finite number of things that need
| explaining, why not let users mark an AI explanation as wrong,
| and submit their own corrected versions?
| drngdds wrote:
| I can't wait for this fad of people trying to use LLMs for things
| that require factual accuracy goes away (or the tech actually
| gets there, I guess)
|
| Transformer models are capable of absurd sci-fi miracles when it
| comes to things that don't require truthfulness but this ain't it
| sergiomattei wrote:
| This is a heavily editorialized title.
|
| It's just a feature that explains a web platform doc using LLMs.
|
| They can be inaccurate sometimes, but as long as that's clear to
| the end user (in this case, developers) I don't think that's a
| problem. Heck, many of us do this day-to-day with ChatGPT.
|
| In this case, the sin was not making the potential for
| inaccuracies clear enough.
| osullip wrote:
| I cannot see anywhere that MDN say the explanation might be
| wrong.
| tough wrote:
| Im pretty sure they use a vector storage database against
| their docs/resources so when you query they can just parse
| those sources and produce a free hallucination response to
| it.
|
| No need to make things up if you have the sources anyways.
| missblit wrote:
| The linked bug report has four examples of it being wrong.
| And the bug reporter mentions there's no workflow to submit
| corrections.
|
| Also hallutination was probably the wrong word to use for
| LLMs being incorrect since it might imply they could be
| correct if they would only just focus on the right input
| data rather than, say, simply not understanding complex
| technical concents, but I guess that ship has sailed.
| manquer wrote:
| "Hallucination free" or "Free hallucination"?
|
| The latter would be very different interpretation and some
| here would probably agree with that accusation
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Imagine putting an LLM anywhere health, safety, or regulation are
| involved. It would be engineering malpractice.
| skilled wrote:
| But I thought it was supposed to be my _Trusted Companion_ ...
| That phrase had my eyes rolling
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-30 23:01 UTC)