Comment by grey-area
21 hours ago
We know they are, and the author of the article cites the proof. LLMs do hallucinate, there is no way to make them not do it, because of the way they work.
21 hours ago
We know they are, and the author of the article cites the proof. LLMs do hallucinate, there is no way to make them not do it, because of the way they work.
A “hallucination” is an authoritative counterfactual statement returned as a response. Why do you think it is impossible to engineer an LLM (by which I am including tool usage and RAG) that catches and prevents such statements?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
Because they are word generators without any concept of quality save what is in their weights and they have been trained on the internet, much of which is wrong or inappropriate for any given context. They have also been trained to be people pleasers and do as they are told.
The popular answer is sometimes the wrong answer.
If I cite an incorrect Wikipedia article, I didn’t hallucinate it. The citation points to a real article that happens to be incorrect.
Why do you think that will happen, and why do you think going for slop in the meantime could possibly bring us closer to that?