More general-purpose models like ChatGPT suffer from hallucinations because they have hoovered up the entire internet, including all the junk and misinformation.
Incorrect. ChatGPT hallucinates because that’s how LLMs work. Hoovering up misinformation is a separate problem.
A company in the space of selling educational books that has seen its fortunes go the opposite direction is Chegg. The company has seen its stock price plummet almost in lock-step with the rise of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, as students canceled their subscriptions to its online knowledge platform.
Incorrect. Chegg is a cheating platform. It is the opposite of a knowledge platform.
Why is Gizmodo paying people to write articles who apparently know pretty much nothing about the subject they are writing about?
I read some of the author’s other articles. They have a habit of regurgitating highly suspect claims from press releases or company self-descriptions as if they were reality.
OpenAI is confident in o3, and offers impressive benchmarks—it says that in a Codeforcing testing, which measures coding ability, o3 got a score of 2727. For context, a score of 2400 would put an engineer in the 99th percentile of programmers. It gets a score of 96.7% on the 2024 American Invitational Mathematics Exam, missing just one question.
There’s also the article which claims that AI puts the entire power grid at risk, and then when you read the article, you learn that in order for that to be true, you need to lump AI in with crypto mining, other datacenter expansion, electric cars, and climate control for people’s homes.
Incorrect. ChatGPT hallucinates because that’s how LLMs work. Hoovering up misinformation is a separate problem.
Incorrect. Chegg is a cheating platform. It is the opposite of a knowledge platform.
Why is Gizmodo paying people to write articles who apparently know pretty much nothing about the subject they are writing about?
Having bad information in your dataset surely has to increase the odds of hallucinations though.
Because they know their audience.
that’s not completely fair ; they could have done their research (using ai)
I read some of the author’s other articles. They have a habit of regurgitating highly suspect claims from press releases or company self-descriptions as if they were reality.
There’s also the article which claims that AI puts the entire power grid at risk, and then when you read the article, you learn that in order for that to be true, you need to lump AI in with crypto mining, other datacenter expansion, electric cars, and climate control for people’s homes.