> Debug builds should by default give .unwrap() and .expect() a tiny chance, like 0.1%, to trigger anyway, even when the Option is Some (opt out via configuration).
I'm trying to understand what you're proposing. Are you saying that normal debug builds should have artificial failures in them, or that there should be a special mode that tests these artificial failures?
Because some of these failures could cause errors to be shown to the user, that could be really confusing when testing a debug build.
I think what you say is true, and I think that this is exactly true for humans as well. There is no known way to completely eliminate unintentional bullshit coming from a human’s mouth. We have many techniques for reducing it, including critical thinking, but we are all susceptible to it and I imagine we do it many times a day without too much concern.
We need to make these models much much better, but it’s going to be quite difficult to reduce the levels to even human levels. And the BS will always be there with us. I suppose BS is the natural side effect of any complex system, artificial or biological, that tries to navigate the problem space of reality and speak on it.
These systems, sometimes called “minds”, are going to produce things that sound right but just are not true.
> But another cause of hallucinations is limited self-awareness of modern LLMs… Humans have some awareness of the limits of their knowledge
Until you said that I didn’t realize just how much humans “hallucinate“ in just the same ways that AI does. I have a friend who is fluent in Spanish, a native speaker, but got a pretty weak grammar education when he was in high school. Also, he got no education at all in Critical thinking, at least not formally. So this guy is really, really fluent in his native language, but can often have a very difficult time explaining why he uses whatever grammar he uses. I think the whole world is realizing how little our brains can correctly explain and identify the grammar we use flawlessly.
He helps me to improve my Spanish a lot, he can correct me with 100% accuracy of course, but I’ve noticed on many occasions, including this week, that when I ask a question about why he said something one way or another in Spanish, he will just make up some grammar rule that doesn’t actually exist, and is in fact not true.
He said something like “you say it this way when you really know the person and you’re saying that the other way when it’s more formal“, but I think really it was just a slangy way to mis-stress something and it didn’t have to do with familiar/formal or not. I’ve learned not to challenge him on any of these grammar rules that he makes up, because he will dig his heels in, and I’ve learned just to ignore him because he won’t have remembered this made up grammar rule in a week anyway.
This really feels like a very tight analogy with what my LLM does to me every day, except that when I challenge the LLM it will profusely apologize and declare itself incorrect even if it had been correct after all. Maybe LLMs are a little bit too humble.
I imagine this is a very natural tendency in humans, and I imagine I do it much more than I’m aware of. So how do humans use self-awareness to reduce the odds of this happening?
I think we mostly get trained in higher education to not trust the first thought that comes into our head, even if it feels self consistent and correct. We eventually learn to say “I don’t know” even if it’s about something that we are very, very good at.
I'm trying to understand what you're proposing. Are you saying that normal debug builds should have artificial failures in them, or that there should be a special mode that tests these artificial failures?
Because some of these failures could cause errors to be shown to the user, that could be really confusing when testing a debug build.