https://youtu.be/peHkL_MaxTU?t=1456

According to this there's an algorithm or something that's been developed which improves accuracy to 100 and completely gets rid of hallucinations and is going to start being tested out by others soon.

Never. You should not “blindly trust” anybody or anything. Everything has an agenda.

You mean equivalent to being as trustworthy as a search engine. Probably 1-3 years.

People already do. I was talking to some one a few weeks ago online, and they sourced ChatGPT in their argument. Of course ChatGPT halucinated half the facts.

People generally don't care about truth, they go with whatever sources are most convenient or entertaining and then trust those.

If we start blindly trusting anything it better basically be god. We have a long way to go

I already do that

about as long as it will take us to blindly trust any human being.

I can see for calculations and things with specific "correct" answers. But how will this handle the more "grey" area question where the answers are pretty subjective and as we've already seen dependant on the LLM data at the time?

Never

They will never be 100% accurate. They are like people. Even the smartest of people doesn't know things, has blind spots, has been trained incorrectly, etc. They are no different. We can trust them the way we can trust people. Perhaps eventually with a very high degree of confidence, but never with 100% blind trust.

Right. There is no “100% accuracy”. And for every 1 question that has an easy “correct” answer, there are 1000 that are subject to at least a modicum of context and assumptions.

Eg seemingly obvious geometry questions would have different answers depending on if we are talking about Euclidean vs non Euclidean geometry.

And - “ is Taiwan its own country?” cannot in principle have a 100% “correct” answer.

Right!

In the case of a better AI model, I'd really like to have AI ask me the prompts instead of the current design where I have to ask the "right" questions to trigger the desired response.

For example, I post to AI, "I'm bored and want to read a book but not sure which one. Help me." Then it asked me a series of questions to get to some selection of available books I own or can acquire.

Next Tuesday

Perhaps a secondary layer of checkbots might scour the results of the chatbots and offer some kind of feedback on accuracy.

It is absurd to say there will be a model with 100% accuracy.

The secret sauce is exactly that it will always give an answer no matter what right now exactly like a human and not give a probabilistic response.

It would have to give answers like there is:

60% probability of A

30% probability of B

10% probability of C

That is most likely what it is already doing but then just saying the answer is A. When the answer is actually B we say it is "hallucinating".

If you add a threshold that can be adjusted then even at 61% it would say it doesn't know the answer at all.

This is not going to be "solved" without ruining the main part of the magic trick. We want to believe it is super human when it says A and we happen to be within that 60% of the time that the answer is A.

It depends. If you have a fact with a certain probability p, it could have been confirmed n times. The standard error if I remember correctly is the square root of p(1-p)/n. So let's say p = 0.9, the std is like a margin of error sqrt(0.9 * 0.1/n). You want n to be high to have a low std.

There are many requirements for factual question answering. As a start, it would need to find sources known to be reliable for the specific topic or if the question is more complex, all the topics it references. Then retrieve the correct information from the possibly many pages of answers. It would need to pick which source should be listened to if the answers are conflicting, and if the answer is biased or highly subjective and the question is fact-reliant, it would need to either find another source or just present all the biased answers. Finally, it would have to rephrase the answer to a user-selected level of complexity (a doctor wouldn’t take a paragraph from a technically-worded research paper and give it to you, they would make it understandable but still accurate enough).

How long this will all take to be created, I don’t know. Maybe it already has been but not all put together. Anyway, I’m probably missing some steps.

Not in the probability sense. Then you should "blindly trust it." As it does more good than harm.

Rn, that bitch is writing me all the code, almost have everything to make my video game

Even asking it simple questions nets some incorrect answers though

I don’t really care if the AI has an agenda if it finds me a really nice terraria build, though. Or tells me how to craft an iron pickax in Minecraft. I’m not exactly going to be forming political opinions through the use of a chat bot anytime soon, trust me.

It's not "absurd." Or at least, it isn't unless you misconstrue what's actually being said. Eliminating hallucinations and being perfect and omniscient aren't the same thing. It's not about being 100 percent perfect, but simply that the points for which It's docked won't be the results of hallucinations. Maybe it won't know an answer, and will say "I don't know." Maybe it will have an opinion on something subjective that's debatable, but that opinion doesn't include hallucination and is simply a shit take like human beings might have.

Never

Never

The first thing is understanding the difference between objective truth, and personal truth. Things like how long a mile or kilometer are are objective truths. These types of truths cannot be tainted by political or other agenda.

if they can show that errors are completely eliminated and the chatbot provides accurate answers every time, people will accept without question. doesn't mean there wont be biased answers about things people disagree on.