3 ms·
Its actually quite interesting just how good it is at making things up. When I first started using it I didn't realise it even could, so when I got a non-existe
by bodge5000 3y ago
Its actually quite interesting just how good it is at making things up. When I first started using it I didn't realise it even could, so when I got a non-existent GDScript function, I started to prod it to see where it came from. It was able to explain the function, tell me when it was added (of course Godot is open source so it would in theory have access to this) and even the commit hash used to add it, and all of it sounded very plausible. It was only when I pointed out that it doesn't exist that it admitted it.
Admittedly that was on GPT3, I haven't tried GPT4 as I can't afford it at the moment. No doubt its better, but I'm not sure how much so.
- mjburgess 3y agoIt's always making things up. It's fundamentally a coincidence when it gets it right. That's the nature of associative statistics -- and why this talk of "hallucination" is more marketing PR. We hallucinate in that our reconstructions of our environment can be caused by internal states (eg., dreaming) -- whereas veridical perceptual states are usually caused directly by the environment. Here, it's states (ie., the statistical averaging process over its training data) is NEVER caused veridically -- ie., its prompts are never caused by the environment.