How many years of the world's DRAM production capacity is it this time?
GPT-5.2
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: GPT-5.2
#822In my experience, the best models are already nearly as good as you can be for a large fraction of what I personally use them for, which is basically as a more efficient search engine. The thing that would now make the biggest difference isn't "more intelligence", whatever that might mean, but better grounding. It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations…
> It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed. Exactly! One important thing LLMs have made me realise deeply is "No information" is better than false information. The way LLMs pull out completely incorrect explana…
I wonder if the only way to fix this with current LLMs, would be to generate a lot synthetic data for a select number topics you really don't want it "go off the rails" with. That synthetic data would be lots of variations on that "I don't know how to do X with Y".
Re: GPT-5.2
#823Is it me, or did it still get at least three placements of components (RAM and PCIe slots, plus it's DisplayPort and not HDMI) in the motherboard image[0] completely wrong? Why would they use that as a promotional image? 0: https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/6lyujQxhZDnOMruN3f...
And here is Gemini 3: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5610AQH7v9MtrZxxug/ima...
This is genuinly impressive. The OpenAI equivalent is less detailed AND less correct.
Re: GPT-5.2
#824Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, brains are also not free of hallucinations.
I still don’t really get this argument/excuse for why it’s acceptable that LLMs hallucinate. These tools are meant to support us, but we end up with two parties who are, as you say, prone to “hallucination” and it becomes a situation of the blind leading the blind. Ideally in these scenarios there’s at least one party with a definitive or deterministic view so the other party (i.e. us) at least has some trust in the…
For these types of problems (i.e. most problems in the real world), the "definitive or deterministic" isn't really possible. An unreliable party you can throw at the problem from a hundred thousand directions simultaneously and for cheap, is still useful.
Re: GPT-5.2
#825Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed. Exactly! One important thing LLMs have made me realise deeply is "No information" is better than false information. The way LLMs pull out completely incorrect explana…
> wrong or misleading explanations Exactly the same issue occurs with search. Unfortunately not everybody knows to mistrust AI responses, or have the skills to double-check information.
If somebody asks a question on Stackoverflow, it is unlikely that a human who does not know the answer will take time out of their day to completely fabricate a plausible sounding answer.
Re: GPT-5.2
#826I work at the intersection of AI and investing, and I'm really amazed at the ability of this model to build spreadsheets. I gave it a few tools to access sec filings (and a small local vector database), and it's generating full fledged spreadsheets with valid, real time data. Analysts in wallstreet are going to get really empowered, but for the first time, I'm really glad that retail investors are also getting these…
Nice tool - I appreciate you sharing the work!
Re: GPT-5.2
#827Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, brains are also not free of hallucinations.
I still don’t really get this argument/excuse for why it’s acceptable that LLMs hallucinate. These tools are meant to support us, but we end up with two parties who are, as you say, prone to “hallucination” and it becomes a situation of the blind leading the blind. Ideally in these scenarios there’s at least one party with a definitive or deterministic view so the other party (i.e. us) at least has some trust in the…
Have you ever employed anyone?
People, when tasked with a job, often get it right. I've been blessed by working with many great people who really do an amazing job of generally succeeding to get things right -- or at least, right-enough.
But in any line of work: Sometimes people fuck it up. Sometimes, they forget important steps. Sometimes, they're sure they did it one way when instead they did it some other way and fix it themselves. Sometimes, they even say they did the job and did it as-prescribed and actually believe themselves, when they've done neither -- and they're perplexed when they're shown this. They "hallucinate" and do dumb things for reasons that aren't real.
And sometimes, they just make shit up and lie. They know they're lying and they lie anyway, doubling-down over and over again.
Sometimes they even go all spastic and deliberately throw monkey wrenches into the works, just because they feel something that makes them think that this kind of willfully-destructive action benefits them.
All employees suck some of the time. They each have their own issues. And all employees are expensive to hire, and expensive to fire, and expensive to keep going. But some of their outputs are useful, so we employ people anyway. (And we're human; even the very best of us are going to make mistakes.)
LLMs are not so different in this way, as a general construct. They can get things right. They can also make shit up. They can skip steps. The can lie, and double-down on those lies. They hallucinate.
LLMs suck. All of them. They all fucking suck. They aren't even good at sucking, and they persist at doing it anyway.
(But some of their outputs are useful, and LLMs generally cost a lot less to make use of than people do, so here we are.)
Re: GPT-5.2
#828In my experience, the best models are already nearly as good as you can be for a large fraction of what I personally use them for, which is basically as a more efficient search engine. The thing that would now make the biggest difference isn't "more intelligence", whatever that might mean, but better grounding. It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations…
> It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed. Exactly! One important thing LLMs have made me realise deeply is "No information" is better than false information. The way LLMs pull out completely incorrect explana…
But most benchmarks are not about that...
Are there even any "hallucination" public benchmarks?
Re: GPT-5.2
#829Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they'll probably not go away, but it's got to be possible to handle them better. Gemini (the app) has a "mitigation" feature where it tries to to Google searches to support its statements. That doesn't currently work properly in my experience. It also seems to be doing something where it adds references to statements (With a separate model? With a second pass over the output? Not sure how that works.). That work…
Doubt it. I suspect it’s fundamentally not possible in the spirit you intend it. Reality is perfectly fine with deception and inaccuracy. For language to magically be self constraining enough to only make verified statements is… impossible.
Take a look at the new experimental AI mode in Google scholar, it's going in the right direction.
It might be true that a fundamental solution to this issue is not possible without a major breakthrough, but I'm sure you can get pretty far with better tooling that surfaces relevant sources, and that would make a huge difference.
Re: GPT-5.2
#830In my experience, the best models are already nearly as good as you can be for a large fraction of what I personally use them for, which is basically as a more efficient search engine. The thing that would now make the biggest difference isn't "more intelligence", whatever that might mean, but better grounding. It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations…
> It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed. Exactly! One important thing LLMs have made me realise deeply is "No information" is better than false information. The way LLMs pull out completely incorrect explana…
I ask for confidence scores in my custom instructions / prompts, and LLMs do surprisingly well at estimating their own knowledge most of the time.