Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmmattt | Hacker News Reader

If it’s a market, wouldn’t the incentive be to lie about knowing and thus to keep the hallucinations?

If you had an llm that could accurately predict when a claim is uncertain it would be very popular, I think. I would pay for that kind of reliability tbh

This would break reality. There’s some underlying physical law that prevents the existence of any algorithm of truth.

> There’s some underlying physical law that prevents the existence of any algorithm of truth

Haven't heard about that law, but seems unlikely we can come up with ("discover") any sort of law that uses a concept ("truth") humans can't even agree what it means, and that's not for a lack of trying, we've been trying to figure it out for millenniums already with no end in sight.

If you accept certain axioms a priori, it’s fine. If you simply let the machine intelligence take it for granted that induction works because nature is uniform and give it some way to test its predictions, it would have all the building blocks it needs to reason out a lot of very useful information. Which as the parent comment points out, people would absolutely pay a lot of money for.

If I am reading you correctly, that ends in testing, or essentially doing science.

That wouldn't satisfy the requirement to look at a claim and be able to tell if a claim was uncertainm roughly speaking.

Up to the point where consumers notice and decide to stop using these models because of it.

Might be why we're already rarely seeing models output an "I don't know".

According to your logic the market will produce an LLM that consists only of 'PRINT "I don't know."'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com