I think part of the “novelty has worn off” that I feel gets ignored is that when the term “hallucinate” was first utilized people would say, or likely think, “o

I think part of the “novelty has worn off” that I feel gets ignored is that when the term “hallucinate” was first utilized people would say, or likely think, “oh, but they’ll figure out how to fix that”, all the while it seems like a lot of those issues are simply baked into its stochastic essentialism. I think this comment on another llm thread illuminates this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36710369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36710369 It talks about newly released and “improved” llms still fumbling with the same mistakes as when all of this was first getting public attention. It seems like the solution they have come up with is “throw more llm at it” or as acolytes call it “mixture of experts”. I am an optimist at heart, and so I’d like to think there is a way to succeed in developing the digital assistants we all have imagined for ourselves, but I’ve yet to see anyone confidently lay out a falsifiable path toward that goal.