> Yes, very good point. Self-driving maximalists who believe that self-driving will be solved with more data need to realize that ChatGPT was trained with ALL the data possible and is still deficient. This defect is probably inherent to existing neural net models and a leap forward of some sort is necessary to solve this.
This is the thing that bugs me about ChatGPT4 which everyone says is a lot better. Did they fix the underlying issues or does it just have more data?
If it's the latter, that means if it's force to operate outside of its "domain" it's going to produce rubbish again - and heaven knows where the limits of its current domain are.
These AIs need to not catastrophically fail if they are missing information.
IMHO in order for AI to be truly useful, we need to be able to trust it. I can't trust something that produces rubbish wherever it's out of its depth instead of just saying "I don't know."
This is the thing that bugs me about ChatGPT4 which everyone says is a lot better. Did they fix the underlying issues or does it just have more data?
If it's the latter, that means if it's force to operate outside of its "domain" it's going to produce rubbish again - and heaven knows where the limits of its current domain are.
These AIs need to not catastrophically fail if they are missing information.
IMHO in order for AI to be truly useful, we need to be able to trust it. I can't trust something that produces rubbish wherever it's out of its depth instead of just saying "I don't know."