|
|
|
|
|
|
by menaerus
261 days ago
|
|
|
> That sentiment will be the same for doctors, lawyers, etc., and personally, I won't put my life in the hands of any LLMs when it comes to finances, health, or personal well-being, for that matter. I mean, did you try it for those purposes? I have personally submitted an appeal to court for an issue I was having for which I would otherwise have to search almost indefinitely for a lawyer to be even interested into it. I also debugged health opportunities from different angles using the AI and was quite successful at it. I also experimented with the well-being topic and it gave me pretty convincing and mind opening suggestions. So, all I can say is that it worked out pretty good in my case. I believe its already transformative in a ways we wouldn't be able even to envision couple years ago. |
|
|
I ended up spending an hour on it and dumping the context twice. I asked it to evaluate its own performance and it gave itself a D-. It came up with the measurements for a decent recipe once, then promptly forgot it when asked to summarize.
Good luck trying to use them as a search engine (or a lawyer), because they fabricate a third of the references on average (for me), unless the question is difficult, then they fabricate all of them. They also give bad, nearly unrelated references, and ignore obvious ones. I had a case when talking about the Mexican-American war where the hallucinations crowded out good references. I assume it liked the sound of the things it made up more than the things that were available.
edit: I find it baffling that GPT-5 and Quen3 often have identical hallucinations. The convergence makes me think that there's either a hard limit to how good these things can get which has been reached, or that they're just directly ripping each other off.