can sometimes hallucinate facts in responses or make incorrect inferences, though at a notably lower rate than existing ChatGPT models, according to internal ev

can sometimes hallucinate facts in responses or make incorrect inferences, though at a notably lower rate than existing ChatGPT models, according to internal evaluations. It may struggle with distinguishing authoritative information from rumors, and currently shows weakness in confidence calibration, often failing to convey uncertainty accurately Taken from the limitations section. These tools are just good at creating pollution. I don't see the point of delegating a (not just) research where 1% blatant mistakes are acceptable. These need much better grounding before handing out to masses. I can not take any output by these tools (google summaries, comment summaries by amazon, youtube summaries etc etc) while knowing for a fact some of that is a total lie. I can not tell which part is a lie. e.g. If LLM says that in any given text the sentiment is divided, it could be just one person with an opposing view. If same task was given to a person, I could reason with that person on any conclusion. These tools will reason on their hallucinations.