• Zaktor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, it’s been my career for the last two decades and before that was the focus of my education. The idea that “correctness is a coincidence” is absurd and either fails to understand how training works or rejects the entire premise of large data revealing functional relationships in the underlying processes.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbtOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or you’ve simply misunderstood what I’ve said despite your two decades of experience and education.

        If you train a model on a bad dataset, will it give you correct data?

        If you ask a question a model it doesn’t have enough data to be confident about an answer, will it still confidently give you a correct answer?

        And, more importantly, is it trained to offer CORRECT data, or is it trained to return words regardless of whether or not that data is correct?

        I mean, it’s like you haven’t even thought about this.