Comment by vidarh
2 months ago
It doesn't work this time because there are plenty of models, including GPT5 Thinking that can handle this correctly, and so it is clear this isn't a systemic issue that can't be trained out of them.
2 months ago
It doesn't work this time because there are plenty of models, including GPT5 Thinking that can handle this correctly, and so it is clear this isn't a systemic issue that can't be trained out of them.
> a systemic issue
It will remain a suggestion of a systemic issue until it will be clear that architecturally all checks are implemented and mandated.
It is clear it is not, given we have examples of models that handles these cases.
I don't even know what you mean with "architecturally all checks are implemented and mandated". It suggests you may think these models work very differently to how they actually work.
> given we have examples of models that handles
The suggestions come from the failures, not from the success stories.
> what you mean with "architecturally all checks are implemented and mandated"
That NN-models have an explicit module which works as a conscious mind and does lucid ostensive reasoning ("pointing at things") reliably respected in their conclusion. That module must be stress-tested and proven as reliable. Success stories only result based are not enough.
> you may think these models work very differently to how they actually work
I am interested in how they should work.
2 replies →
> It suggests you may think these models work very differently to how they actually work.
It suggests to me the opposite: that he thinks there can be no solution that doesn't involve externally policing the system (which it quite clearly needs to solve other problems with trusting the output).
1 reply →