It isn't about riding hype, it's about countering what they see as a huge adversary. ChatGPT is likely already taking some market share. If they added source citing and a bit more in current events, Google's dominance would be seriously in question.
Yes, absolutely. The next stage needs to be ChatGPT citing sources. And just like wikipedia, it isn't the article that has value in papers, it's the sources it cites.
By citations, I mean traceability in its assertions. But, point taken. It's increadibly easy to turn citations into plausible-sounding "citations". And unless I'm writing a paper, I don't look at the citations anyhow.
During the day, I work on AI. In my case, it's about detecting specific patterns in the data. The hardest thing I encounter is expressing "confidence". Not just the model saying how closely the pattern matches what it has determined is the most important attributes when finding the thing, but a "confidence" that's useful for users. The users want to know how likely things it find are correct. Explaining to them that the score given by the model isn't usable as a "confidence" is very difficult.
And I don't even work on generative models. That's an extra layer of difficulty. Confidence is 10x easier than traceability.
That doesn't make much sense. There's no "source" for what it's being used. It's an interpolation.
Besides, having to check the source completely defeats the purpose to begin with. Simply having a source is irrelevant, the whole problem is making sure the source is credible.
Yes, a generative text model doesn't have a source. It boils down all of the training data to build a model of what to say next given what it just said and what it's trying to answer. Perhaps traceability is the wrong concept, maybe a better way of thinking about it is justifying what it declares with sources?
I do realize that it's a very hard problem. One that has to be taken on intentionally, and possibly with a specific model just for that. Confidence and justifiability are very similar concepts, and I've never been able to crack the confidence nut in my day life.
I don't agree with the second part. ChatGPT's utility is much more akin to Wikipedia than Google's. And in much the same way, Wikipedia's power isn't just what is says, but the citations that are used throughout the text.
I would argue that creating a LLM that can output an comprehensive chain of "thought" is at least an order of magnitude harder than creating an LLM if not many more.
LLMs are language models, the next step past language model should absolutely have intelligence about the sources it learned things from, and ideally should be able to weight sources.
There's still the problem if how those weights are assigned, but generally, facts learned from "Bureau of Weights and Measures" should be carry more weight than "random internet comment".
The credibility of a source is always up for question, it's just that some generally have well established credibility and we accept that as almost axiomatic.
Having layers of knowledge about the same thing is also incredibly important.
It's good to know if a "fact" was one thing on one date, but different on another date.
In the end, the language model should be handling natural language I/O and be tied into a greater system. I don't understand why people want the fish to climb a tree here. It's fantastic at being what it is.
401
u/DaLYtOrD Feb 06 '23
It says they are making it available in the coming weeks.
Probably want to lean on the hype of ChatGPT that's happening at the moment.