Hacker News Reader

Not to pick on you, but this is exactly the objectionable handwaving. What makes you think we'll get there? The kinds of errors that these technologies make have not changed, and anything that anyone learns about how to make them better changes dramatically from moment to moment and no one can really control that. It is different because those other things were deterministic ...

View on HN

In comp sci it’s been deterministic, but in other science disciplines (eg medicine) it’s not. Also in lots of science it looks non-deterministic until it’s not (eg medicine is theoretically deterministic, but you have to reason about it experimentally and with probabilities - doesn’t mean novel drugs aren’t technological advancements).

And while the kind of errors hasn’t changed, the quantity and severity of the errors has dropped dramatically in a relatively short span of time.

The problem has always been that every token is suspect.

It's the whole answer being correct that's the important thing, and if you compare GPT 3 vs where we are today only 5 years later the progress in accuracy, knowledge and intelligence is jaw dropping.

I have no idea what you're talking about because they still screw up in the exact same way as gpt3.

The hallucination quantity and severity is way less in new frontier models.

But not more predictable or regular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com