"but using LLMs for answering factual questions" this was about fact checking. Of course I know LLM's are going to hallucinate in coding sometimes.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
If you know that a source isn’t to be believed in an area you know about, why would you trust that source in an area you don’t know about?
Another funny anecdote, ChatGPT just got the Gell-Man effect wrong.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b7af-5e40-8010-b1e3-ee9ff3c8cb...
Obviously it works for you (or at least you think it does), but I can confidently say it's fucking god-awful for me.
That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test.
They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.
If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.
Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?
If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.
I'm sorry but this is a lazy and unresponsive string of comments that's degrading the discussion.
I agree this is a stupid comment thread, we just disagree about why.
How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.
You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.
I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself though I'll change my mind.
JustExAWS replied with an example of getting Python code wrong and suggested it was a counter example. Simianwords correctly noted that their comment originally said thinking mode for factual answers on non-niche topics and posted a link that got the python answer right with thinking enabled.
That's when you entered, suggesting that Simian was "missing" the point that GPT (not distinguishing thinking or regular mode), was "not always right". But they had already acknowledged multiple times that it was not always right. They said the accuracy was "high enough", noted that LLMs get coding wrong, and reiterating that their challenge was specifically about thinking mode.
You, again without acknowledging the criteria they had noted previously, insisted this was cherry picking, missing the point that they were actually being consistent from the beginning, inviting anyone to give an example showing otherwise. At no point between then and here have you demonstrated an awareness of this criteria despite your protestations to the contrary.
Instead of paying attention to any of the details you're insulting me and retreating into irritated resentment.
Instead you've tried everything from saying I need to "get a sense of humor", to character attacks, to insisting without specific explanation that I "don't understand", to declaring that you "don't care", to declaring that no amount of information will make you acknowledge the inaccuracy of your own comments.
So you haven't succeeded in changing the subject of the conversation, except in the sense of turning it into a tutorial about why you can't make wrong into right with character attacks or declarations about how much you don't care.