3 ms·
Unless you actually checked the article, ChatGPT likely hallucinated the figures and picked a plausible-sounding source. Most likely, nothing changed when you t
by Sunhold 3y ago
Unless you actually checked the article, ChatGPT likely hallucinated the figures and picked a plausible-sounding source. Most likely, nothing changed when you tried a few days later. The responses are stochastic due to the temperature setting. If anything did change, it was probably an update to reduce hallucination.
- gomox 3y agoI never saw the actual article, but the quoted figures were not just plausible and reasonable but also internally consistent throughout several exchanges. It produced exact figures for key (i.e. largest) submarkets and growth estimates for smaller ones, in the same way that I would expect the original content to be structured. I would bet with a 95%+ confidence that it parroted the actual contents. $2000 for that extra 5% tho.
- aaron695 3y agoI've never seen anyone link a ChatGPT response to a source document[1] Yet you are saying you've linked it to a source, even though you haven't seen it. [1] GPT-2 was sometimes possible. Anyone for ChatGPT?
- gomox 3y agoI don't know what you mean. ChatGPT's reply said something along the lines of "according to study ABC done in 2020 by research firm XYZ...". It's not some theory I concocted.
- ipaddr 3y agoThat might have come from someone else making it freely available
- RC_ITR 3y agoYeah it was probably just a random pdf that commoncrawl got to. Plenty of people post that kind of stuff on accidentally indexed sites. The risk though is even if it remembers the right format, there’s no guarantee it remembers the right numbers. So caveat emptor.