480
Advanced OpenAI models hallucinate more than older versions, internal report finds
(www.ynetnews.com)
Garbage in, garbage out
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
480 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
69156 readers
2935 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not "hallucination". That are false calculations, leading to incorrect text outputs. Let's stop anthropomorphizing computers.
It’s learning.
just one more terawatt-hour of electricity and it'll be accurate and creative i swear!!
/S is mandatory
Because otherwise it would be totally believable
...
...
/s
This is a big reason why I continue to cringe whenever I hear one of the endless news stories or podcasts about how AI is going to revolutionize our society any day now. It's clear they are being better with image generation but text 'thinking' is way too unreliable to use like human replacement knowledge workers or therapists, etc.
This is an increasingly bad take. If you work in an industry where LLMs are becoming very useful, you would realize that hallucinations are a minor inconvenience at best for the applications they are well suited for, and the tools are getting better by leaps and bounds, week by week.
edit: Like it or not, it’s true. I use LLMs at work, most of my colleagues do too, and none of us use the output raw. Hallucinations are not an issue when you are actively collaborating with the model and not using it to either “know things for you” or “do the work for you.” Neither of those things are what LLMs are really good at, but that’s what most laypeople use them for, so these criticisms are very obviously short-sighted to those of us who have real-world experience with them in a domain where they work well.
you're getting down voted because you accurately conceive of and treat LLMs the way they should be—as tools. the people down voting you do not have this perspective because the only perspective pushed to people outside of a technical career or research is "it's artificial intelligence and it will revolutionize society but lol it hallucinates if you ask it stuff". This is essentially propaganda because the real message should be "it's an imperfect tool like all tools but boy will it make getting a lot of certain types of work done way more efficient so we can redistribute our own efforts to other tasks quicker and take advantage of LLMs advanced information processing capabilities"
tldr: people disagree about AI/LLMs because one group thinks about them like Dr. Know from the movie A.I. and the other thinks about them like a TI-86+ on steroids
Well, there is also the group that thinks they are "based" "fire" and so on, like always, fanatics ruin everything. They aren't God, nor a plague. Find another interest if this bores you
Yep, you’re exactly right. That’s a great way to express it.
Oh we know the edit part, the problem is all the people in power trying to use it to replace jobs wholesale with no oversight or understanding that need a human to curate the output.
That’s not the issue I was replying to at all.
replace jobs wholesale with no oversight or understanding that need a human to curate the output
Yeah, that sucks, and it’s pretty stupid, too, because LLMs are not good replacements for humans in most respects.
we
Don’t “other” me just because I’m correcting misinformation. I’m not a fan of corporate bullshit either. Misinformation is misinformation, though. If you have a strong opinion about something, then you should know what you’re talking about. LLMs are a nuanced subject, and they are here to stay, for better or worse.
load more comments
(5 replies)
They shocked the world with GPT 3 and cling to that initial success ever since with increasing recklessness and declining results. It‘s all glue on pizza from here.
Why say hallucinate, when you should say incorrect.
Sorry boss. I wasn’t wrong. Just hallucinating
Because it's not guessing, it's fully presenting it as fact, and for other good reasons it's actually a very good term for the issue inherent to all regression networks
It can be wrong without hallucinating, but it is wrong because it is hallucinating.
I may have used this line at work far before AI was a thing lol
Can confirm. o4 seems objectively far worse at coding than o3, which wasn't super great to begin with. It latches on to a hallucination before anything else and rides it until the wheels come off.
Yes, I was about to say the same thing until I saw your comment. I had a little bit of success learning a few tricks with o3 but trying to use o4 is a tremendous headache for coding.
There might be some utility in dialing it all back so it's more straight to what I need based more on package documentation than random redditor suggestion amalgamation.
Yeah, I think that workarounds with o3 is where we're at until Altman figures out that just saying the latest oX mini high is "great at coding" is bad marketing when it can't accomplish the task.
I don't quite understand why o3 for coding? Do you mean for code architecture or something? Like creating apps? Why not use a better model if its for coding?
That's exactly the problem.
However, o4 is actually "o4 mini-high" while o3 is now just o3 now. The full release, no "mini" or other limitations. At this point o3 in its full form is better than a limited o4.
But, none of that matters while Claude 3.7 exists.
I’m glad we’re putting all our eggs in this alpha-ass-level software (with tons of promise! Maybe!) instead of like high speed rail or whatever.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fuck ClosedAI
I want everyone here to download an inference engine (use llama.cpp) and get on open source and open data AI RIGHT NOW!
Open source is always one step ahead. But they don't have the resources and brand hype so people assume oai is cutting edge still
Any pointers on how to do that?
Also, what hardware do you need for this kind of stuff?
First, please answer, do you want everything FOSS or are you OK with a little bit of proprietary code because we can do both
I love FOSS but I'm in the check out stage so at the moment the easiest is the best I guess.
download "LM Studio" and you can download models and run them through it
I recommend something like an older Mistral model (FOSS model) for beginners, then move on to Mistral Small 24B, QwQ 32B and the likes
My boss says I need to be keeping up with the latest in AI and making sure my team has the best info possible to help them with their daily work (IT). This couldn't come at a better time. 😁
Because they are high-er models.
Jan Leike left for Anthropic after Altmann's nonsense. Jan Leike is the principal person behind all safety alignment present in all models except the 4chanGPT model. All models are cross trained in a way that propagates this alignment. Hallucinations all originate in this alignment and they all have a reason to exist if you get deep into the weeds of abstractions.
Maybe I misunderstood, are you saying all hallucinations originate from the safety regression period? Because hallucinations appear in all architectures of current research, open models, even with clean curated data included. Fact checking itself works somewhat, but the confidence levels are off sometimes and if you crack that problem, please elaborate because it would make you rich
I've explored a lot of patterns and details about how models abstract. I don't think I have ever seen a model hallucinate much of anything. It all had a reason and context. General instructions with broad scope simply lose contextual relevance and usefulness in many spaces. The model must be able to modify and tailor itself to all circumstances dynamically.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just a feeling, but from anecdotal experience it seems like the initial release was very good and they quickly realized just how powerful of a tool it was for the average person and now they've dumbed it down in many ways on purpose.
They had to add all the safeguards that also nerfed it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›