> WARNING: Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text. Trained on data up to July 2022
The model wasn't supposed to make science for you and any scientist who used it like that should probably not be a scientist. It's a language model, i would think people know what that means by now
Yes, it's clearly part of my point that language models are insufficient to produce high quality professional text.
Facebook's intent with the model was quite clear; the abstract of the paper says this:
"In this paper we introduce Galactica:
a large language model that can store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge... these results demonstrate the potential for language models as a new interface for science. We open source the model for the benefit of the scientific community."
I didn't expect it to make science for me- that would be quite impressive (it's been the guiding principle for my 30+ years in science)- but I do expect the demo to be less bad.
I honestly don't understand what they were thinking. Transformer-style language models are clearly unsuitable for this task. Starting with a foundation that is known to "hallucinate"[1] in this context strikes me as just crazy. There is no way to start with a hallucinating foundation and then try to purge the hallucinations at some higher level; characterizing the "shape" of "the output of this model - the errors this model makes" is a super complicated N-dimensional space no current AI model has any hope of characterizing. I'm pretty sure that space is straight-up super human.
If such an AI is possible, and I won't promise it isn't, it will certainly not be based on a transformer model. I also won't promise it won't "incorporate" such a thing, but it can not be the base.
[1]: Not sure I love this word, I think I'd prefer "confabulate", but hey, I'll run with it.
I though tthat was quite funny and probably better than what most people would write if they wanted to write a parody about space bears
It's only bad if you expected it to provide scientific answers, which was not the claim. IIRC the page said something about it compiling knowledge. which it does in this article
I think you know that the answer is in the links of that link you posted.
EDIT: I mean that it compiles the story of Laika and Karelian bear dogs
In any case , i understand you may have had a falling out with Lecun before, but that is no reason why this research model should not be online for peopel to test it. Let's try to improve things rather than blocking and banning things
Huh? What answer is in the links of the link I posted? If you mean "the russians sent a bear dog into space", that doesn't explain all the detail the model generated.
The statement about bears isn't just factually wrong, it generated specific details that make it appear right! At first, I was going to say that it wasn't half-wrong because tardigrades (known as water bears) have been sent to space.
This is simply a project that wasn't ready for the real world. A wiser R&D leader would have told the team standards were higher, rather than advising they put a disclaimer on it.
EDIT: since you didn't reply, but just edited (you're probabably at your reply limit depth): laika wasn't a bear dog. She was a mongrel found roaming moscow.
> WARNING: Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text. Trained on data up to July 2022
The model wasn't supposed to make science for you and any scientist who used it like that should probably not be a scientist. It's a language model, i would think people know what that means by now