Large language models and their big bullshit potential.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Ethics and Information Technology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1007/s10676-024-09802-5
Sarah A Fisher
{"title":"Large language models and their big bullshit potential.","authors":"Sarah A Fisher","doi":"10.1007/s10676-024-09802-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Newly powerful large language models have burst onto the scene, with applications across a wide range of functions. We can now expect to encounter their outputs at rapidly increasing volumes and frequencies. Some commentators claim that large language models are <i>bullshitting</i>, generating convincing output without regard for the truth. If correct, that would make large language models distinctively dangerous discourse participants. Bullshitters not only undermine the norm of truthfulness (by saying false things) but the normative status of truth itself (by treating it as entirely irrelevant). So, do large language models really bullshit? I argue that they can, in the sense of issuing propositional content in response to fact-seeking prompts, without having first assessed that content for truth or falsity. However, I further argue that they <i>need not</i> bullshit, given appropriate guardrails. So, just as with human speakers, the propensity for a large language model to bullshit depends on its own particular make-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":51495,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Information Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452423/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Information Technology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09802-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Newly powerful large language models have burst onto the scene, with applications across a wide range of functions. We can now expect to encounter their outputs at rapidly increasing volumes and frequencies. Some commentators claim that large language models are bullshitting, generating convincing output without regard for the truth. If correct, that would make large language models distinctively dangerous discourse participants. Bullshitters not only undermine the norm of truthfulness (by saying false things) but the normative status of truth itself (by treating it as entirely irrelevant). So, do large language models really bullshit? I argue that they can, in the sense of issuing propositional content in response to fact-seeking prompts, without having first assessed that content for truth or falsity. However, I further argue that they need not bullshit, given appropriate guardrails. So, just as with human speakers, the propensity for a large language model to bullshit depends on its own particular make-up.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大型语言模型及其巨大潜力
功能强大的新大型语言模型已经崭露头角,应用范围十分广泛。我们现在可以预见,它们的输出量和频率会迅速增加。一些评论家声称,大型语言模型是在胡说八道,它们不顾事实真相,产生令人信服的输出结果。如果这种说法是正确的,那么大型语言模型就会成为非常危险的话语参与者。胡说八道者不仅破坏了真实性规范(说假话),而且破坏了真理本身的规范地位(将真理视为完全无关紧要)。那么,大型语言模型真的会胡说八道吗?我认为大型语言模型真的会胡说八道,因为它们会根据寻找事实的提示发出命题内容,而不会首先评估这些内容的真假。不过,我进一步认为,只要有适当的防护措施,它们就不需要胡说八道。因此,正如人类说话者一样,大型语言模型的废话倾向取决于其自身的特殊构成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Ethics and Information Technology is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the dialogue between moral philosophy and the field of information and communication technology (ICT). The journal aims to foster and promote reflection and analysis which is intended to make a constructive contribution to answering the ethical, social and political questions associated with the adoption, use, and development of ICT. Within the scope of the journal are also conceptual analysis and discussion of ethical ICT issues which arise in the context of technology assessment, cultural studies, public policy analysis and public administration, cognitive science, social and anthropological studies in technology, mass-communication, and legal studies.
期刊最新文献
Conceptualizing understanding in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): an abilities-based approach Deconstructing controversies to design a trustworthy AI future Transparency for AI systems: a value-based approach Undisruptable or stable concepts: can we design concepts that can avoid conceptual disruption, normative critique, and counterexamples? Ludic resistance: a new solution to the gamer’s paradox
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1