3 ms·
You still need to verify that the answer that Claude gave is not hallucinated. That will also cost you some more time. If the answer is wrong and people trust
by vaylian 2mo ago
You still need to verify that the answer that Claude gave is not hallucinated. That will also cost you some more time.
If the answer is wrong and people trust your judgement, then they will take a lot longer to figure out, that your answer is not to be relied upon.
- deepsummer 2mo agoI usually do so I understand what I am replying, but seriously, the latest Opus and Fable versions get it right more often than I would. The time of AI hallucinations is over, as long as they have the context.
- Springtime 2mo agoEven Mythos can hallucinate[1] with a codebase to analyze. The argument I often see is that humans are fallible, too, but the issues we're seeing in this topic are about those who should know better—including in senior positions—heeding LLM responses/advice over human and concerningly not actually thinking about things at all. Ie: they're not being treated by many as just useful tools/tentative feedback but as authoritative answers/solutions. There still needs to be critical thinking involved on the human side, even if there's a high rate of accuracy in certain dimensions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434824
- deepsummer 2mo agoThat's a bad example: it did not hallucinate about the codebase (which it had access to), but about a rule outside the codebase (which is not in the context, I assume). Yeah, missing requirements can cause it to rely on things it thinks are true. Same as humans do all the time when they lack context.
- watwut 2mo agoChrist, no, humans dont makr the same mistakes. And even mire importantly, those who do similar ones, end up not being trusted. We dont have such a campaign around people as there is about ai.
- bigstrat2003 2mo agoThat just isn't true. LLMs still hallucinate all the time.