2 ms·
They're tuned (and its part of their nature) to be convincing to people who don't already know the answer. I couldn't get it to figure out how to substitute pea
by pessimizer 1y ago
They're tuned (and its part of their nature) to be convincing to people who don't already know the answer. I couldn't get it to figure out how to substitute peanut butter for butter in a cookie recipe yesterday.
I ended up spending an hour on it and dumping the context twice. I asked it to evaluate its own performance and it gave itself a D-. It came up with the measurements for a decent recipe once, then promptly forgot it when asked to summarize.
Good luck trying to use them as a search engine (or a lawyer), because they fabricate a third of the references on average (for me), unless the question is difficult, then they fabricate all of them. They also give bad, nearly unrelated references, and ignore obvious ones. I had a case when talking about the Mexican-American war where the hallucinations crowded out good references. I assume it liked the sound of the things it made up more than the things that were available.
edit: I find it baffling that GPT-5 and Quen3 often have identical hallucinations. The convergence makes me think that there's either a hard limit to how good these things can get which has been reached, or that they're just directly ripping each other off.