![]() Some professionals termed the model “good enough,” “very helpful,” “ not bad Opens a new window ,” “ game changer Opens a new window ,” “ pretty impressive Opens a new window ,” and “cool” but “ not quite ready Opens a new window. Bergstrom went on to call Galactica a “random bullshit generator.” Sebastian Raschka, a machine learning and AI researcher, assessed that Galactica is more of a wiki article template generator than a wiki article generator.Īdditionally, Meta’s claim that it solves math problems was also disputed Opens a new window by Carl Bergstrom, a biologist and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. People found that it generated fake research and wiki articles that sounded right but were hokum. That’s exactly what happened with the Galactica demo. Establishing language-specific and grammatically correct combinations of words that make sense on paper based on established rules and patterns doesn’t necessarily mean the results should satisfy level-headed scientific tempers. The level of criticism Galactica is receiving is relative to the consequence of where its application lies. ![]() See More: Google Techie Suspended After Questioning Whether LaMDA Has Become Self-Awareīased on the numerous other results generated by Galactica, it would seem that Meta’s latest tool to extract the actual meaning or value through the interpretation of the papers and data it was trained on is just another cargo-cutting effort. This is hilarious /9QdT3oDgBu Opens a new window “It reads like someone who knows just enough terminology to sound convincing, but actually has many of the details wrong,” Umberger noted.Ī user who took Galactica for a spin tweeted the results: This could usher in an era of deep scientific fakes.”īrian Umberger, professor and chair of movement science at the University of Michigan, concurred. Grammatical science writing is not the same as doing science. It produces pseudo-science based on statistical properties of science *writing*. “It offers authoritative-sounding science that isn’t grounded in the scientific method. It will be realistic but wrong or biased. This text will slip into real scientific submissions. Director at the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Michael Black’s scathing criticism included the word ‘dangerous.’ “Why dangerous? Galactica generates text that’s grammatical and feels real. The scientific community was quite dismissive of the tool. The fact that Meta released the demo with a “NEVER FOLLOW ADVICE FROM A LANGUAGE MODEL WITHOUT VERIFICATION” message almost suggests that the company was half expecting the reaction it has garnered. Remember the GPT-3-based Blender Bot 3 conversational AI (also by Meta), Microsoft’s Tay, Scatter Lab’s Luda chatbot, and others? If the development of large language models has indicated anything, it is that they tend to go awry as soon as netizens get to play with them. In a paper, Meta termed it as a tool to organize science and disclosed that it is trained on 48 million papers, textbooks and lecture notes, millions of compounds and proteins, scientific websites, and encyclopedias totaling 120 billion parameters. Galactica Opens a new window is Meta’s initiative to streamline scientific research discovery and ease scientific text generation. Before the weekend, however, the tool was taken down following its tendency to generate what can only be termed gibberish and its inability to solve some rudimentary mathematical questions accurately. On Tuesday last week, a demo of Meta’s much touted artificial intelligence model Galactica was unveiled to the public. ![]() According to MIT Technology Review, Galactica, designed to assist scientists with relevant scientific compositions, was taken down because it is “a mindless bot that cannot tell fact from fiction.” ![]() Meta has pulled down Galactica, its latest large language model, just three days after it was introduced.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |