> My point is that the hallucination rate of modern LLMs, while not zero, is so low that this is no longer an issue in practice.
That's just not true. Talk to an LLM about a subject you know deeply. They make up things all the time.
That's just not true. Talk to an LLM about a subject you know deeply. They make up things all the time.
What are you applying? Would you even admit LLMs are useful for this if they’re perfect at topics that kids would be learning? Or are your objections actually ideological rather than pragmatic?
And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic.
And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them.
That is a problem both ideologically and pragmatically. You have to think long-term.
On a side note: ask an LLM to write a story at a 4-9 year old level. Work with it for awhile doing iterations and it will hallucinate a previous detail or change a character name as context rots. Lots of other examples of "basic" topics that still produce hallucinations.
You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.
But now you’re saying the common sense is that they will hallucinate.
Let’s try again: your claim is that LLMs “make up stuff all the time”, so they can’t be used to educate children.
I’m saying that modern SOTA models do not make up stuff all the time as it pertains to the topics a child of 4-9 would learn. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect or will never make mistakes, but there’s zero reason to think such issues would be widespread. And common sense would tell you that perfection is not required for LLMS to be a net positive in education.
I’m sure you’ll have another vapid rejoinder, but this has been boring for awhile and you seem to be enjoying being obtuse, so I’m moving on.