I've figured out what pisses me off so much about Facebook's Galactica demo.

It's not because people can use to to write bad essays for their homework. There are plenty of large language models that can do that. It's because Facebook is presenting it as something that it most definitely is not.

Facebook is selling it as a knowledge engine, a "new interface to access and manipulate what we know about the universe."

Actually it's just a random bullshit generator.

http://galactica.org

Galactica Demo

Let's take a look. Galactica can generate wikipedia articles, supposedly.

So let's see what they look like. Here's one for Brandolini's law, the principle that bullshit takes another of magnitude less effort create than to clean up.

Left: Galactica's attempt at creating a wikipedia entry
https://galactica.org/?prompt=wiki+article+on+brandolini%27s+law

Right: The actual wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

wiki article on brandolini's law - Galactica

Here's the kicker. It's not that Galactica picked the wrong law. It is that the Padua economist to whom Galactica attributes the law, Gianni Brandolini, DOES NOT EXIST.

Galactica's phrasing of the law itself? That does not exist either. No one has ever said that phrase online (rather a surprise, tbh).

Galactica doesn't let us "access and manipulate what we know about the universe." It generates *pure bullshit* — which, incidentally, will be orders of magnitude more difficult to clean up.

UW researcher Robert Wolfe pointed out to me that there is a fundamental category mistake in how #galactica is being pitched.

This is not a machine learning system that is designed to represent scientific facts, models, and the structures that associate them. (There are other research efforts that attempt to do that.) This is a large language model that is designed to produce semantically plausible text using scientific terms and conforming to our expectations for various technical formats.

This is why, when I called it a bullshit generating machine, I was using the term bullshit in its technical sense. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt explained, in On Bullshit, that bullshit is speech intended to be persuasive without concern for the truth. For Frankfurt, the difference between a liar and a bullshitter Is this a liar knows the truth and is trying to lead you elsewhere where is the bullshitter either doesn’t know or doesn’t care wants to sound like they know what they’re talking about.

That’s more or less exactly what a large language model like this does.

It is trained to produce text it seems like it was written by a competent person. In this case #galactica also uses a technical vocabulary, frequent citation, structured argumentation, numbers, etc. to create a veneer of legitimacy—all tools frequently employed in the sort of new-school bullshit that we treat in our book.

it doesn’t care about facts. It has no representation of them beyond their semantic relations.

@ct_bergstrom I think even "semantic relations" is in fact an overstatement. It's all about textual distribution and nothing more.
@emilymbender Thank you. Really hoping we can discuss this tomorrow.
@ct_bergstrom I think we might be hard pressed to talk about anything else!
@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom but textual relations do track semantic relations, no? that’s why LSA models in cognitive science that basically track co-occurrence of text are such good predictors of various semantic similarity tasks/relationships. So not semantic relationships pee se, but the two things aren’t wholly distinct.

@UlrikeHahn @ct_bergstrom

I wrote a paper so I could stop having this argument:

https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.463/

See in particular section 7.

Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data

Emily M. Bender, Alexander Koller. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2020.

ACL Anthology
@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom aha! will read and ponder - thank you!

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom

ok, I'm back, having gone off and read your paper (in particular section 7) and I don't think it conflicts with what I said and I think that matters for the whole discussion, so I will try and spell this out.
First, I was trying to say (and will say) that LLMs *contain information* about semantic relationships - which is not the same as saying that they have access to fully fledged semantics (hence I said "not semantic relationships per se"). I've always thought 1/

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom

2/ of co-occurrence statistics (and related distributional information) as "footprints of use" not use per se (so I totally agree with your section 7!). There is something missing there, but what's missing is also missing in *other* computational approaches for dealing with language and that doesn't preclude there being empirical questions about whether one system or approach is better than another . I very much like @ct_bergstrom's description of the system as a

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom

3/ BS machine, and I think the observation that it works differently in important respects from other current systems for dealing with scientific text is also apt. But those systems also don't have effectors that give them symbol grounding.

But we can still have meaningful discussion about whether their functionality and performance is better or worse.

All of which is to say that I think it is entirely right to point out the limitations of distributional knowledge

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom
4/ but I disagree on how far those kinds of in principle arguments go.
We can think about the Collins Dictionary of English and agree that it contains specifications of intensional relationships between concepts, and we can agree that actual human speakers have (extensional) knowledge that goes beyond that.
But it is, to my mind, an empirical and open question *how much* such knowledge is required.
And, relatedly, it is not clear a priori how far a given system

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom
5/ can get in practice without it.

With respect to BS versus true statements about the world this boils down to the relationship between coherence and correspondence . And that depends on the specific coherence constraints.

All of this, I think, is why cognitive scientists currently have considerable interest in the kinds of reasoning and inference LLMs can support, even though they understand what such systems do and do not capture about meaning.

@emilymbender @ct_bergstrom

6/all of which is a long winded way of trying to make the point that in principle considerations (e.g., predictive or distributional models as 'category errors') go less far than one might think, imo, even if that diagnosis is taken as correct.

apologies for wading in here, and please feel free to ignore.

@ct_bergstrom I think of these models as a step beyond the "bag of words" models that were popular for text in the early 2000s. The main difference is that LLMs have decent local temporal structure, in particular they produce correct grammar and even sub-topic similarity, which is not nothing & is a success for ML! I appreciate @emilymbender and colleagues' work to help us not be fooled by these models. It is a new type of second-order BS that we are not used to filtering!
@ct_bergstrom i don’t know how but i KNEW this reveal was coming. “bet it doesn’t even exist,” i thought.
@ct_bergstrom Perhaps Brandolini exists in another continuity?
@ct_bergstrom this is just plain scary, considering the clear potential of polluting the Web with nonsense disguised as "information" and how dangerous is that, considering that the younger generation doesn't read newspapers, nor books much... This is aside of advertising a tool that does your homework, so that your brain can go happily to waste... 😭😭 #galactica #misinformation #fakenews
@ct_bergstrom I've found most of the LLM to date all have this problem. It requires a lot of prompt engineering to get accurate output. And as you've spotlighted here, requires deep knowledge of the space to spot the BS/inaccurate stuff, so people using LLM tools to help generate content outside their deep expertise areas may end up generating "knowledge" that future tools train on that become 'fact' and harder to trace back to fully debunk/fix in the future.
@danamlewis @ct_bergstrom it's like the Wikipedia cycle that xkcd described back in the day (unsourced claims generate their own sources as they get cited without attribution), but for machine learning.
@danamlewis @ct_bergstrom can these tools be used in the hands of experts to aid with aspects of knowledge work? I'm interested in seeing that in the publishing process.
@IanMulvany I’d very much like to see it get there. So far I haven’t had any success beyond auto-completing l well-known facts at the end of sentences. But it is useful in a way for stimulating my brain to go “argh, that’s not correct, it should be saying _____” and helping overcome some writer’s block. (Similar to how it is easier to edit someone’s rough draft than start with a blank page?) @ct_bergstrom

@ct_bergstrom I think the key word is "manipulate." Seems to be working as intended.

Seriously though — it is inevitable that one of these enterprises will use machine learning to manipulate the public's perception of reality. That happens to Facebook's current mission with the Meta rebrand, so it's not to far afield to assume that is Galactica's ultimate intended purpose.

Spinning Language Models: Risks of Propaganda-As-A-Service and Countermeasures

We investigate a new threat to neural sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models: training-time attacks that cause models to "spin" their outputs so as to support an adversary-chosen sentiment or point of view -- but only when the input contains adversary-chosen trigger words. For example, a spinned summarization model outputs positive summaries of any text that mentions the name of some individual or organization. Model spinning introduces a "meta-backdoor" into a model. Whereas conventional backdoors cause models to produce incorrect outputs on inputs with the trigger, outputs of spinned models preserve context and maintain standard accuracy metrics, yet also satisfy a meta-task chosen by the adversary. Model spinning enables propaganda-as-a-service, where propaganda is defined as biased speech. An adversary can create customized language models that produce desired spins for chosen triggers, then deploy these models to generate disinformation (a platform attack), or else inject them into ML training pipelines (a supply-chain attack), transferring malicious functionality to downstream models trained by victims. To demonstrate the feasibility of model spinning, we develop a new backdooring technique. It stacks an adversarial meta-task onto a seq2seq model, backpropagates the desired meta-task output to points in the word-embedding space we call "pseudo-words," and uses pseudo-words to shift the entire output distribution of the seq2seq model. We evaluate this attack on language generation, summarization, and translation models with different triggers and meta-tasks such as sentiment, toxicity, and entailment. Spinned models largely maintain their accuracy metrics (ROUGE and BLEU) while shifting their outputs to satisfy the adversary's meta-task. We also show that, in the case of a supply-chain attack, the spin functionality transfers to downstream models.

arXiv.org
@rook @ct_bergstrom That was my thought too. They are trying to replicate the Ministry of Truth.
@ct_bergstrom Thank you for introducing me to "Brandolini's Law." I love how it's essentially the step-child of a book written to clean up Malcolm Gladwell's bullshit.
@ct_bergstrom @Ruth_Mottram I’m sure it will be fine. It’s not like we’ve built any social structures that reward and amplify truthy bullshit.
wiki article on climate crisis - Galactica

@parents4future @ct_bergstrom
In 2014 Greta Thunberg would have been 11, she only started her public protest at 15 (it took until 2019 that she got flooded with invitations to talk in front of parliaments).
So it is a bullshit generator. A dangerous one. What hubris. Suits Meta though.
@ct_bergstrom now in addition to the most excellent tool to spread misinformation (social networks and the internet in general), humanity has more tools to generate misinformation of convincing quality. Hopefully, the overabundance of bullshit will create increased demand for critical thinking and society will improve.
what is your hierarchy of evidence - Galactica

@ct_bergstrom There numbers are not close except it does get the census years correct giving it just enough plausibility that I had to Google and check.
@ct_bergstrom we should call it “artificial mansplaining,” always confident, rarely correct

@amyhoy @ct_bergstrom

I was thinking Bullshit Engine but that's -much- better!

@amyhoy @ct_bergstrom YES! This is the perfect point. I tried various subjects I'm very familiar with and it looked like a bunch of basic BS someone who took 5 min with Google would come up with.

@Deacon @ct_bergstrom it’s a little more insidious than that bc it *sounds*, note for note, perfect.

it’s bullshit elevated to perfection

a bullshitter who doesn’t even know they’re bullshitting bc they’re not an intelligence and can’t “know” anything

@amyhoy

This is perfect and I think it is our collective obligation here in the fediverse to make it sick.

@ct_bergstrom 😎😎😎

it’s been a long time since i coined “entreporn” (which got quite a bit of uptake) so i am feeling good about this one!

perhaps a sign to christen my empty new blog @ amyhoy.com

@amyhoy I can't believe this has only been shared four times so far, when it's the single most apposite observation I've seen so far on Mastodon.
Man page: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

@amyhoy @ct_bergstrom Not my experience of mansplaining - confident for sure but always telling you something you already knew (better and in more depth than them) without the moment's thought that would have made that obvious.
@amyhoy @ct_bergstrom
And insofar as it is correct, it says nothing new, and fails cite sources.
@amyhoy @ct_bergstrom this sounds like twitch chat in a programming stream...
@ct_bergstrom @amyhoy I asked ChatGPT to explain why it’s not mansplaining:

@emoses @ct_bergstrom Not All AI Systems

please tell me this is real

@emoses I mean the training data it has access to is oh so rich @ct_bergstrom @amyhoy
@ct_bergstrom @amyhoy @emoses haha! what prompt did you use?
@LambdaDuck @ct_bergstrom @amyhoy I don’t have it anymore, but it was something like “Explain to me why AI isn’t confident but usually wrong, confidently, starting with ‘Well, actually’”