Real world industry already relies heavily on hallucinated outputs. They are called humans. One of the main differences between people who see the astonishing

Real world industry already relies heavily on hallucinated outputs. They are called humans. One of the main differences between people who see the astonishing value of LLMs right now and people who are some combo of skeptical, dismissive, and indignant, is the expectation that for something to be a valuable source of information, it has to be factually accurate every time. The entirety of civilization has been built on the back of inaccurate sources of information. That will never change and it absolutely can't, because (1) factual accuracy is not something that can be determined by consensus in a variety of significant cases, and (2) factual accuracy as a concept itself does not have a consensus definition, operationally or in the abstract. Absolutely frustrating to see these topics addressed as if thousands of years of intense thinking around truth and factual accuracy has not taken place. The results of those inquiries do not support the basic assumptions of these conversations (i.e. that factual accuracy is amenable to exhaustive algorithmic verification).