←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
svara ◴[] No.46241936[source]
In my experience, the best models are already nearly as good as you can be for a large fraction of what I personally use them for, which is basically as a more efficient search engine.

The thing that would now make the biggest difference isn't "more intelligence", whatever that might mean, but better grounding.

It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed.

I think Google/Gemini realize this, since their "verify" feature is designed to address exactly this. Unfortunately it hasn't worked very well for me so far.

But to me it's very clear that the product that gets this right will be the one I use.

replies(8): >>46241987 #>>46242107 #>>46242173 #>>46242280 #>>46242317 #>>46242483 #>>46242537 #>>46242589 #
phorkyas82 ◴[] No.46241987[source]
Isn't that what no LLM can provide: being free of hallucinations?
replies(3): >>46242091 #>>46242093 #>>46242230 #
svara ◴[] No.46242091[source]
Yes, they'll probably not go away, but it's got to be possible to handle them better.

Gemini (the app) has a "mitigation" feature where it tries to to Google searches to support its statements. That doesn't currently work properly in my experience.

It also seems to be doing something where it adds references to statements (With a separate model? With a second pass over the output? Not sure how that works.). That works well where it adds them, but it often doesn't do it.

replies(2): >>46242582 #>>46242634 #
1. ◴[] No.46242582[source]