Post #2720200

2026-01-13 09:18 UTC

If, suppose, I were optimistic over this technology, but pessimistic over its current stage of development, I’d expect this to be a cure. It’s a problem they’ll have to solve. A test they’ll have to pass. If somewhere inside those things someone makes a mechanism building a graph of syllogisms, no kind of poisoned input data will be able to hurt them. So - this is a good thing, but when people say it’s a rebellion, it’s not.

Replies (5)

@Disillusionist@piefed.world 2026-01-13 09:32

Not all problems may be cured immediately. Battles are rarely won with a single attack. A good thing is not the same as nothing.

Open ##2720202
@FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2026-01-13 15:10

A test they’ll have to pass. This makes me chuckle, as they invented euphemisms like ‘hallucinations’ because their LLM models can’t do what they promise. Fabulous marketing, but clearly they didn’t do enough testing.

Open ##2720213
@kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2026-01-13 17:35

Samsung and Anthropic published independently created data showing how little bad data it takes to effectively poison very large models. LLMs pretend to be complex, but they aren’t, they’ll not continue to improve at the initial rate we got used to seeing. Just ask OpenAI.

Open ##2720220
@treesapx@lemmy.world 2026-01-13 17:48

“You’re not opposing me. All you’ve done is create a problem that will stop me until I have it figured out.” is the description of every struggle between opposing forces, so it’s interesting that you disagree with that.

Open ##2720221
@a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2026-01-14 15:20

You ascribe far too much to the internal workings than is reasonable.

Open ##2720240