Comment by dcrazy
1 day ago
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?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
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?
Nobody said anything about “going for slop.” You can watch today’s models actively trying to check themselves. Just use Google’s AI mode, for example. It’s far from perfect—it doesn’t fact-check every single claim, nor does it correctly understand 100% of the sources it does cite. But I’ve found it pretty useful for research as long as I use my brain and check its citations.
> Nobody said anything about “going for slop.”
I did. I used that phrase.
"not slop cuz pretty useful" = slop argument