Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9767958" data-attributes="member: 42856">To me, lying is having an intent to deceive. If someone ask his way to the nearest bank and you give him, mistakenly, bad information, I wouldn't say you lied to them. You outputted false information, but you didn't lie, because it was without intent. You need to know very well that he must turn right and tell him to turn left to be lying.If you consider all incorrect information a lie, then I agree with you, of course AI lie.I think, on the other hand, that using a word implying that AI can think and have intent is a misdirects readers into thinking that LLM are something more than they are -- more Skynet than tools -- that they shouldn't trust blindly. I was actually thinking lie means an intent to deceive, not an error, even silly as in the example of the video. But I won't argue with you over the definition of lie in a foreign language.Of course AI can't apologize. That would require a feeling of being contrite, something tools don't do. Nobody expect their d4 to be sorry if they walk on it and it hits their toe.And of course LLM output shouldn't be trusted and relied upon, as written on the output on many LLMs. That's an important restriction that everyone should know before using it. Much like one must know that books aren't necessarily true, AI output isn't necessarily true. We're not disagreeing here. But I feel the message could be conveyed more efficently by telling: "it's a tool. It doesn't know true or false, right or wrong, it output things for the human operator to sort out. Do not trust it for anything vaguely important without double checking it" than by using other wording implying guilt, or intent, or apology.</blockquote>

Verification