4 ms·
> how can I trust the output to not be hallucinated? You can't, not absolutely. You can have some level of confidence, like 99.99%, which is probably good enou
by roflyear 4y ago
> how can I trust the output to not be hallucinated?
You can't, not absolutely. You can have some level of confidence, like 99.99%, which is probably good enough tbh (and I'm a sceptic of these tools) and honestly, it is probably better than a human, on average, at this!
But if that is a deal-killer (and it sometimes is!) then yeah, sorry - there aren't workarounds here.
- iudqnolq 4y ago99.99% seems off by orders of magnitude to me. I don't have an exact number but I routinely see GPT 3.5 hallucinate, which is inconsistent with that level of confidence. I've noticed this discussion tends to get too theoretical too quickly. I'm uninterested in perfection, 99.99% would be good enough. 70% wouldn't. The actual number is something specific, knowable, and hopefully improving.
- mrbombastic 4y agoI don’t have hard numbers but anecdotally hallucinating has gone down significantly with gpt4, it certainly still happens though.
- roflyear 4y agoI think it's way better than 70%, probably 95%+ even with bad data and poor prompts. I'd have to run more numbers but it's definitely better than 70%. You can get to 99.9%+ with good data and well designed prompts. I'm sure it would be above 90% even with almost intentionally bad prompts, tbh.
- iudqnolq 4y agoIt's definitely not that good if we share a definition of poor data/prompts. This afternoon I tried to use Codium to autocomplete some capnproto Rust code. Everything it generated was totally wrong. For example, it used member functions on non-existent structs rather than the correct free functions. But I'll give it some credit: that's an obscure library in a less popular language.
- roflyear 4y ago> This afternoon I tried to use Codium to autocomplete some capnproto Rust code. This isn't what I said at all. I said with summarizing data.