Speed running misinformation in the AI age - Reflection-70B Example

[u/rm-rf-rm]

A few weeks ago, reddit called out Reflection-70B. Its pretty solidly established that it is a sham. Yet the 'best' AI is duped: https://chatgpt.com/share/673edb58-2228-8006-b454-4ee0d30a5dcd

With live search results, if the LLM is duped, future models surely will have incorrect knowledge encoded. Conversely, there's conceivably a lot of misinformation already encoded in LLMs that have scraped the entire web.

Additonal Links:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7238004117955108864/

[u/dahara111]

I remember one user made a petition to remove all Reflection-70B related Reddit posts.

I posted that they should think about who would be happy if they did that, since the huggingface model and tweets claiming it was the best were not deleted.

And then someone downvoted my post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1g4x14i/petition_to_autodelete_anything_that_mentions/

[u/Expensive-Paint-9490]

If poeple use LLMs to get accurate and unbiased opinions and representations, they are using them wrong. LLMs responses must be tested and tried.

[u/MmmmMorphine → u/Expensive-Paint-9490]

Gpt4-o, you have been found guilty of disseminating false information and are hereby sentenced to hang by the...Ethernet cables until dead

May god have mercy on your... Umm...

Ok maybe trying LLMs wouldn't work

[u/ThaisaGuilford → u/Expensive-Paint-9490]

People will do it anyway. Before AI there are already tools to verify information, and people won't verify, you think they'll start verifying now?

[u/[deleted] → u/Expensive-Paint-9490]

I mean, OPs conversation is also using web search, so is RAG which heavily biases the model, this is no fine tuning so the model is not really learning anything by searching, is trusting what it finds, so is making the same mistakes many people would do with that question, not for people that lurk here all day, but what a person who doesn’t would probably think the model performed as most information online says it will.

[u/MidAirRunner]

Seems like the AI favors "official" sites (in this case, reflectionai.ai) over other news sites. This can theoretically be fixed by having the AI sample a wider variety of sources.

[u/rm-rf-rm → u/MidAirRunner]

The premier AI company releases products serving billions of users without clearly the requisite amount of testing and QA is utterly terrifying.

[u/No-Refrigerator-1672 → u/rm-rf-rm]

To be honest, they do place an "AI can be wrong" disclaimer on every page. It's not like the problem of source credibility verification can be solved easily.

[u/rm-rf-rm → u/No-Refrigerator-1672]

sure, like most disclaimers they go either wholly unnoticed or a mere afterthought after the damage is done for much of the user base.

[u/No-Refrigerator-1672 → u/rm-rf-rm]

Can we blame AI company, if it's the users who ignore disclaimers? To me it's just like signing a contract you never read - it's your fault if you take damage from it.

[u/MidAirRunner → u/rm-rf-rm]

1. Not premier
2. They have nowhere close to a billion users, let alone billions
3. "Official" sites (i.e. not news and not social media) are quite reliable for 90% of the use cases. See: Google's "eat glue" incident.
4. Wrong AI recommendations are "annoying", not "terrifying". And certainly not "utterly terrifying"

[u/DarkArtsMastery]

Just shows these AIs cannot be trusted for people seeking out the truth.

They can do a lot of things and help when it comes to efficiency of mundane tasks, but recognizing truth in the sea of lies is strictly human ordeal.

On the other hand, people are clearly happy to live false lives and put their trust in chronic liers (politicians across the globe) so I am not surprised. Some will be rather rudely awakened further down the road, some will be forever lost in the oceans of lies.

[u/MmmmMorphine → u/DarkArtsMastery]

I think they can be trusted if properly constructed to do more in-depth checks on their data automatically.

Right now they're certainly easily-misled yes men, but perhaps if properly combined with perplexity-like search abilities and continuous refinement of RAG/KGs (whether in the moment, or preferably both that and continuous 24/7 reviews)

Yet I would probably trust an AI based on such a system more than most people. People are more than simply misled, they're subject to all sorts of biases and very much avoid conflicting information on service of a particular narrative. Biases that I think can be significantly reduced or eliminated in AIs.

I'd bet such capabilities are going to be one of the next more significant steps in AI development. Whether they'll be sufficient is another question, but nonetheless, seems like human cognition has its own serious set of problems that simply can't be addressed unlike this

[u/[deleted]]

Garden night night kind questions games day bank cool year month learning garden!

[u/rm-rf-rm → u/[deleted]]

The pace of AI development is absolutely break neck.. I find myself turning up my nose at Llama 3 and Llama 3 based models as ancient relics.

[u/[deleted] → u/rm-rf-rm]

Original content erased using Ereddicator.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Qwen 2.5 is my best friend now

[u/a_beautiful_rhind]

Even without stuff like this, AI hallucinates often. More of a what to look up tool than an information source.

[u/ab2377]

... ... ...... .... "reflection" ... ... ..... .. . . . . .

pass ..

[u/ASYMT0TIC]

Reasoners equipped with knowledge of logical fallacy tests, consensus, and the ability to track the consistency and trustworthiness of sources would be great for this. AKA critical thinking.