Carl T. BergstromDec 6, 2022

At this point it will surprise no one, but I asked #ChatGPT to define bullshit and to cite its sources.

It provided definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

The definitions it provided were entirely reasonable, but they were decidedly not from the sources it claimed.

This highlights the fact that ChatGPT and other LLMs are not knowledge models, they are themselves engines trained to produce convincing bullshit.

Below: ChatGPT, CED, MW.

Show threadLuca VisentinDec 6, 2022
@ct_bergstrom
Could you elaborate on "convincing bullshit"? Is GPT marketed as a knowledge model? I think it's supposed to be taken at face value: it's a model that spits out convincing text. And most of the times it gets it right, at least for simple things.
Show threadJack MottDec 6, 2022
@MrHedmad @ct_bergstrom seems like a restatement of his thesis!
Show threadLuca Visentin

@jackmott
Well I think I'm a bit less... Harsh (?). My position is a bit softer than the one of many people these days here on mastodon (that I can see!)

@ct_bergstrom

Dec 6, 2022 at 1:10pmWeb
Show threadJack MottDec 6, 2022
@MrHedmad @ct_bergstrom for sure. Indeed, and if you can generate BS as well as humans that is an impressive accomplishment, shouldn't be dismissed.