Comment on Has anyone or anything ever passed the Turring Test? If so how and why?
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks agoI trust AI far more than I do a random person. They have access to far more information, and are more likely to be correct about any particular question asked.
That is a terrifying stance. And, frankly, embarrassing.
"OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws":
https://www.computerworld.com/article/4059383/openai-admits-ai-hallucinations-are-mathematically-inevitable-not-just-engineering-flaws.html
OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, acknowledged in its own research that large language models will always produce hallucinations due to fundamental mathematical constraints that cannot be solved through better engineering, marking a significant admission from one of the AI industry’s leading companies.
[...] The research proposed “explicit confidence targets” as a solution, but acknowledged that fundamental mathematical constraints meant complete elimination of hallucinations remained impossible.
Epp@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
I, of course, disagree. Humans on the whole are ignorant and the average person is insufferably ill-informed. You are proving to be the exception. In general however, people suck at answering questions on subjects in which they’re not experts.
I have read that study, but I believe it to be flawed and I’m not alone. Please read the counter argument that hallucination is a structural phenomenon of estimation itself.
In other words, it is a problem that can be solved.
arxiv.org/abs/2509.21473?hl=en-US
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
Well, I suppose we can at least agree to disagree.
I have seen so much incoherent but confident nonsense produced by LLMs (mainly by frontier models trying to do even basic software development) that I would not be able to say in good conscience that thought was involved. Junior developers would have done better. The experience definitely fits the behavior of a word predictor, though.
Having seen what LLMs claim about software development, my stance is that absolutely no one should trust at face value what these models output. They're Dunning-Kruger machines.
As for producing new ideas, these models are as creative as a random number generator. Coincidentally, that's what is responsible for faking their creativity (the "temperature" parameter).
I guess that's all I feel like saying in this particular thread.
Epp@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
That we can.
At the company where I’ve been the lead developer for fifteen years, sentiment is split down the middle - half think as I do, half think as you do. In (nearly) every instance where one of the opposing developers shows me nonsense, it’s been easy to identify the cause: a lazy prompt with insufficient context. Garbage in, garbage out.
Having seen the results of the US elections, I don’t think anyone should trust humans. Yet here we are.
As for temperature, yes, I’m aware of the parameter. The human equivalent would be genetic mutation, although we can’t alter ours on the fly.
Thank you for the civil discussion. Until next we butt heads in the threads 👋