11–20 of 63 posts
I'm hoping for more than anecdotes. I believe AI is not ready for what it's being used for, but all I get are downvotes and no citations. Maybe all of you are just scared to say it out loud?
I think its solved, with the right setup and model. I couldn't tell u the last time my agent hallucinated. For me I consider it solved. However some dude feeding massive docs into gpt chat and long conversations, It is not solved in this context.
Would you trust it to make life and death decisions? Because it is being used in that context. Drones with AI, armed, and with discretion to choose a target and kill it.
I'm hoping for more than anecdotes. I believe AI is not ready for what it's being used for, but all I get are downvotes and no citations. Maybe all of you are just scared to say it out loud?
No one is scared of saying something anonymously online, and wondering if that’s what’s going on is immature and silly. People earnestly disagree with you, but they don’t owe you an argument
I'm hoping for more than anecdotes. I believe AI is not ready for what it's being used for, but all I get are downvotes and no citations. Maybe all of you are just scared to say it out loud?
No one is scared of saying something anonymously online, and wondering if that’s what’s going on is immature and silly. People earnestly disagree with you, but they don’t owe you an argument
Most, like you, have nothing useful to contribute.
My personal opinion: all output from LLMs is hallucinations. The idea that it’s “right” or “wrong”, when stating factual information is really in the eye of the beholder/user. What year did astronauts land on the moon? — is a question that may or may not have a factual answer depending on your own beliefs. Philosophically, you would need to also define what a fact is, or what “not hallucinating” is, to define what a…
For the first, we're mostly past the point of just "testing". So I don't see that too much anymore. Mostly I still see that though in bug reports generated by AI by someone else. There is usually some underlying bug being reported, but the AI explanation and "helpful suggestion" is typically inaccurate. Generally, suggested fixes are terrible. (They likely work, but fix a symptom not the cause.)
The second still happens, but with much less regularity for me though. It does make mistakes though.
In areas where I'm not as skilled it's very hard to spot errors. When researching general information I'm mostly accepting it on face value.
I find the bug-report thing really interesting. For lots of simple bugs it's great. For more complex things it seems to be very superficial- if a 0 causes an issue here, add a simple guard for 0. There's no depth of understanding why the value is 0 in the first place, when it should be set. If it can (incorrectly) be 0 here, where else might 0 be impacting the code?
This informs my opinion of vibe coded stuff - where there is no skilled human inspection. I expect that code to be of a poor underlying quality. Especially if it's AI changes to an existing human-coded app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you trust it to make life and death decisions? Because it is being used in that context. Drones with AI, armed, and with discretion to choose a target and kill it.
The types of people using it that way are not concerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves, and arguably not even that except within a very immediate time horizon.
I think its solved, with the right setup and model. I couldn't tell u the last time my agent hallucinated. For me I consider it solved. However some dude feeding massive docs into gpt chat and long conversations, It is not solved in this context.
Would you trust it to make life and death decisions? Because it is being used in that context. Drones with AI, armed, and with discretion to choose a target and kill it.
My personal opinion: all output from LLMs is hallucinations. The idea that it’s “right” or “wrong”, when stating factual information is really in the eye of the beholder/user. What year did astronauts land on the moon? — is a question that may or may not have a factual answer depending on your own beliefs. Philosophically, you would need to also define what a fact is, or what “not hallucinating” is, to define what a…
I'm talking about software being allowed to make the decision to put bullets through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy.
Worth noting that both cases indirectly involve the humans that designed devices and the humans that made the placement and trigger condition decisions.
Further:
> AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using technology they have been given.
Ukrainian Combat Robot Holds Frontline Position for Six Weeks in Sign of Growing UGV Maturity - https://defenceleaders.com/news/ukrainian-combat-robot-holds...
are remote operated, they allow defenders cover while themselves being out and exposed.
However were they altered to autonomously fire, that would be on the basis of pattern matching in the visible and infra red spectrum - shoot at all hot blobs.
That's more of a trigger threshold setting issue than an LLM hallucination issue, and the danger is on par with any weapon system on auto fire, you really shouldn't approach such things until they are put in a safe off state or have exhausted ammunition.
There are two common ways to spot hallucinations. Talk to it about a topic you know well, or implement what it suggests and get an error or failure. For the first, we're mostly past the point of just "testing". So I don't see that too much anymore. Mostly I still see that though in bug reports generated by AI by someone else. There is usually some underlying bug being reported, but the AI explanation and "helpful sug…