Ahh yes the random rolling stone article that refutes the point

Let’s revisit the list, shall we?

Stoic desire to be informed and to be a force of good for others with like intentions

No problem can do

Thank you

None of this was true of copilot for years, but I stand corrected as for the current state of affairs

GitHub copilot is not chatgpt

I stand corrected thank you for sharing

I was commenting based on anecdotal experience and I didn’t know where was a test specifically for this

I do notice that o3 is more overconfident and tends to find a source online from some forum and treat it as gospel

Which, while not correct, I would not treat as hallucination

That could be true, please enlighten me

This isn’t really true as far as I’m aware

I’m not familiar with the term

🆗

What makes this a bullshit take? Focusing attention on actual problems is a great way to make progress

Please articulate why the premise of my argument is fundamentally flawed

No that is not how reasoned debate works, you have to articulate your argument lest you’re just sloppily babbling talking points

I think I’m on board with arguing against how LLMs are being owned and managed, so I don’t really have much to say

Basically no. What you’re calling tailored AI is actually low cost AI. You’ll be hard pressed, on the other hand, to get ChatGPT o3 to hallucinate at all

What exactly is the argument?

I don’t understand the nature of your question

I don’t think this answers the question

What would Altman gain from overstating the environmental impact of his own company?

You should consider the possibility that CEOs of big companies essentially always think very hard about how to talk about everything so that it always benefits them

I can see the benefits, I can try to explain if you’re actually interested

I actually think that (presently) self hosted LLMs are much worse for hallucination