this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)
Futurology
1807 readers
19 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Current LLM models tend to extract "best practice" responses a lot. They can statistically guess the correct responses to things, because it's what experts cite the most. I wonder if that is what is behind this? As the authors of the research point out, the significance here is not the AI's appearance of superior intelligence, it's that it's yet another example of how people may be influenced by AI.
That and the fact that I'm guessing they hand picked the results too instead of using just the first response given. Ultimately LLMs aren't AI, it's not forming its own thoughts, it's generating text based on input that was produced by humans. So saying they rated "AI" responses better than humans is already disingenuous.
Probably. They've mastered the art of corporate-speak; another natural language task which doesn't require precise abstract reasoning.
I'm kind of convinced that the set of possible moral philosophies most people would agree with in practice is the empty set, at this point, so I'm not surprised those kinds of answers do better.
I took one of the more complicated questions from an expert help column and fed it into Chat GPT. This was before it could perform live searches and the answer it gave was pretty close to the expert’s own answer.
"A representative sample of 299 U.S. adults first rated the quality of moral evaluations when blinded to their source."
a representative sample is probably 299 absolute idiots... i'd also question what people they had actually write the human essays...