News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GPT-5 is behind schedule by cardanome on Monday December 23, 2024 @09:44AM (#42494722)
In the not so distant past we already had a tool that allowed us to look up any question that came into our minds.

It was super fast and always provided you with sources. It never hallucinated. It was completely free except for some advertisement. You could build a whole career out of being good at using it.

It was a search engine. Young people might not remember but there was a time when Google wasn't shite but actually magic.

Re:GPT-5 is behind schedule by ben_w on Monday December 23, 2024 @09:53AM (#42494794)
> we already had a tool that allowed us to look up any question that came into our minds … It never hallucinated. … It was a search engine.

Except for all the times the search results were wrong answers.

https://searchengineland.com/when-google-gets-it-wrong-direc...

Re:GPT-5 is behind schedule by cardanome on Monday December 23, 2024 @11:23AM (#42495535)
Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems.

At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was. With LLM's the connection between the answer and the source is completely lost. You can't even tell why it answered a certain way.

Re:GPT-5 is behind schedule by ben_w on Monday December 23, 2024 @11:46AM (#42495717)
> Being biased is not the same as hallucinating. LLMs have both problems.

I didn't deny either of those things, I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples, including "King of the United States" -> "Barack Obama".

Just because it showed the link to breitbart doesn't mean it was not hallucinating.

> At least you could check whether a source was reputable and where the bias was.

The former does not imply the latter. You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden — an argument that I saw some on the American right make to criticise Google for failing to show their version of events.

> With LLM's the connection between the answer and the source is completely lost. You can't even tell why it answered a certain way.

Also not so. The free version of ChatGPT supports search directly, so it allows you to have references.

Re:GPT-5 is behind schedule by skydhash on Monday December 23, 2024 @01:43PM (#42496636)
> I said that search engines also hallucinate — my actual link gave several examples

They don't. Google added a weird widget that do hallucinate. But the result list is still accurate, even though it may be biased towards certain sources.

> You could tell where a search engine got an answer from, but not which answers were hidden

A bit pedantic, but a search engine returns a list of results according to the query you posted. There's no question-answer oracle. If you type "King of the United States", you will get pages that have the terms listed. Maybe there will be semantic manipulations like "King -> Head of state -> President", but generally it's on you to post the correct keywords.