Re:Calling the AI bluff: Adding "Do not guess" cut made-up c...
by cowboylowrez on Monday September 28, 2026 @08:18AM
(#49876837)
So my naive understanding is that the stochastic parrot part of this business is the "statistical likelyhood of the next token", so there must be abstractly a function of "whats the next token" right? I'm also assuming that this function could be able to also return how "right" that next token is, or somehow some "strength" based on how many close matches there are, like for instance some tokens are obviously the right next token by a long shot, some next token spaces might have more closely competing candidates, so I guess my question is whether there is any value in saving or accumulating information on whether overall the tokens were close matches or not? Like a "confidence" running total or "history log", or is that just somehow too expensive or nonsensical to do?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Calling the AI bluff: Adding "Do not guess" cut made-up c...
by otabdeveloper4 on Monday September 28, 2026 @01:56PM
(#49881833)
> could be able to also return how "right" that next token is
No. LLMs always output the next most statistically likely token. They don't reason. The so-called "hallucination" you see is just the most likely answer.
Re:Calling the AI bluff: Adding "Do not guess" cut made-up c...
by cowboylowrez on Monday September 28, 2026 @05:35PM
(#49884721)
Yes, thats how its done now, I was talking about the feasability of recording the "sureness" of the function for each token as it ran (as described in the previous post), I'm betting it'd have to be done pretty low in the stack lol