[blackkettle]

While I'm definitely not going to argue that LLMs are inherently 'thinking' like people do, one thing I do find pretty interesting is that all this talk about hallucinations and bias seems to often conveniently ignore the fact that people are often even more prone to these exact same problems - and as far as I know that's also unlikely to be solved.

ChatGPT is often 'confidently wrong' - I'm pretty sure I've been confidently wrong a few times too, and I've met a lot of other people in my life who've express that trait from time to time too, intentionally or otherwise.

I think there is an inherent trade off between 'confidence', 'expression', and of course 'a-priori bias in the input'. You can learn to be circumspect when you are unsure, and you can learn to better measure your level of expertise on a subject.

But you can't escape that uncertainty entirely. On the other hand, I'm not very convinced about efforts to train LLMs on things like mathematical reasoning. These are situations where you really do have the tools to always produce an exact answer. The goal in these types of problems should focus not on holistically learning how to both identify and solve them, but exclusively on how to identify and define them, and then subsequently pass them off to exact tools suitable for computing the solution.

[StackOverlord]

Indeed but people who are confidently wrong in good faith so to speak don't make up science paper titles.