zlacker

>>scared+(OP)
There is a certain amount of irony that people try really hard to say that hallucinations are not a big problem anymore and then a company that would benefit from that narrative gets directly hurt by it.

Which of course they are going to try to brush it all away. Better than admitting that this problem very much still exists and isn’t going away anytime soon.

>>nerdjo+A84
Did anyone say that? They are an issue everywhere, including for code. But with code at least I can have tooling to automatically check and feed back that it hallucinated libraries, functions etc, but with just normal research / problems there is no such thing and you will spend a lot of time verifying everything.

>>anonzz+7H4
Yes, most people who have an incentive in pushing AI say that hallucinations aren't a problem, since humans aren't correct all the time.

But in reality hallucinations either make people using AI lose a lot of their time trying to stuck the LLMs from dead ends or render those tools unusable.

>>felipe+0R4
> Yes, most people who have an incentive in pushing AI say that hallucinations aren't a problem, since humans aren't correct all the time.

We have legal and social mechanisms in place for the way humans are incorrect. LLMs are incorrect in new ways that our legal and social systems are less prepared to handle.

If a support human lies about a change to policy, the human is fired and management communicates about the rogue actor, the unchanged policy, and how the issue has been handled.

How do you address an AI doing the same thing without removing the AI from your support system?