[aesthesia]

Hallucination rate scores are a little tricky to interpret because they're conditional on the model not knowing the answer. That means they don't measure the probability of your encountering a hallucination in everyday use, since that also depends on the probability of the model not knowing the answer, as well as how well your distribution of tasks aligns with the distribution tested in the eval.

I'd also hesitate to attribute this difference in hallucination rates purely to model size. Yes, GLM-5.2 hallucinates much less frequently than DeepSeek-V4 Pro with twice as many parameters, but DeepSeek-V4 Flash is less than half the size of GLM-5.2 and tops the AA-Omniscience hallucination index. Opus 4.8, which is likely larger than DeepSeek-V4 Pro, has a 36% hallucination rate on the index, above GLM-5.2's 28%, but way below the DeepSeek numbers. Opus also has a 47% accuracy rate vs GLM-5.2's 25%. If you use these numbers to calculate the absolute hallucination rate (i.e., the number of hallucinated responses divided by the total number of responses), you get 19% for Opus and 21% for GLM-5.2.

So yes, all else equal larger models may be more prone to hallucination in scenarios where they don't know the answer, but there are a lot of other factors that affect hallucination rates, and it's not totally clear that this is the main metric that's worth tracking.

[in-silico]

Additionally, maybe it's easier for a model to realize that it doesn't know the answer when the question is easier.

If Opus gets all but the hardest questions right, it might have a higher hallucination rate because the questions it gets wrong are the questions where verification or hallucination detection are the most difficult

[gymbeaux]

Those numbers are abysmal. Should we really be using LLMs to write our code? I have a theory- LLMs can spit out code that gets the job done and looks ok, maybe even great, but contains small “anomalies” that compound over time. An enterprise app developed entirely with LLM-happy devs might end up virtually unmaintainable.

I’m not sure how to explain it, but the more I see LLM-written code the more I feel it’s bad code doing a good job of masquerading as good code. I think this take will become less-hot in the next year or two when we see enterprise greenfield projects that were created entirely with LLM “assistance” go to prod. I think we’ll find that the code is difficult for humans to read, understand, debug, and extend- and I think the larger the codebase the harder it will be for LLMs to maintain. More opportunity for hallucination, larger context windows needed, more tokens bought and spent for smaller and smaller code changes. I think the more code an LLM writes for an app, the worse that codebase becomes.

[andybak]

I can't help but feel that people continually underestimate how bad human written code becomes over time. The exception is probably single-person passion projects or open source projects that maintain quality governance over time.

I strongly suspect most closed source code developed under commercial or internal pressure is pretty awful after a few years of development.

All LLM code has to do is suck less than existing code. And that's presuming the code quality doesn't improve as the models, the harnesses and our ways of working with them improve.

[embedding-shape]

Sucky human-written code is still based on human understanding, which can change over time, be readjusted or solidified. People implement something wrong once, then update their perspective, then in the future does it right.

LLMs doesn't have this benefit. You forget to add the correct to the system prompt, and the LLM will repeat the same mistake over and over, and worse than that, their mistakes aren't based on their understanding, it's basically random guesses.

Humans, even bad coders, still seem to have some sort of architecture in mind, even if it's spaghetti, whereas LLMs (obviously) don't think more than a few steps, and never about the full scope of what they're contributing too, and on purpose too, because you want the context to be as small as possible when you work with LLMs.

With LLMs you need to thread carefully between "What does the LLM need to know?" and "Can I skip passing this to the LLM this time?" while a human you can more or less dump them everything you sit on, and let them shift it through, and they'll mostly make it out OK.

[xzenor]

And where do you think the LLM learned coding from?

But anyway, let the LLM verify the code to give advice on improvements but don't let it write code unverified. That's my opinion on it anyway.

[realaleris149]

Take a look at a sufficiently old random internal repo which was not written with LLMs and compare.

My observation is that they are equally bad and hard to maintain or even more so than the new ones.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the LLM assisted ones have a lot more comments which is nice but take more time to read.

[xvinci]

Not my observation. If you never look at the code and dont have basic guardrails in place (linters, architecture tests, some guidelines for best practices) - probably.

But as soon as you do minimal reviews and high-level corrections, applications turn out just fine.

Can there be bugs? Sure. That's the price of not reading or understanding every line. It should depend on the criticality of your software how much of these you tolerate and how much you don't (reviewing, understanding, testing everything 100% like you were used to if you had written it yourself will kill most if not all of your gained speed)

But I never got the impression of unmaintainability or unfixable bugs.

Actually the other side around: A really good cleanup pass, architectural changes, or bugfixes are seldom more than a few prompts and 2 hours away, provided your overall base is decent and you actually gave a fuck from the start.

[VBprogrammer]

> Can there be bugs? Sure. That's the price of not reading or understanding every line.

I've yet to come across a human developer who's output would meet this standard, despite writing every line.

In fact, having an LLM review our code is catching quite a few bugs before it reaches QA.

[ben_w]

Indeed, though I find the distribution is different.

The humans may skip unit tests and need reminding; the AI always write unit tests once it's in AGENTS.md or whatever, but my experience* was that 5-10% of the time the LLM's attempt at a "test" would, instead of executing the code and examining the results, open the source code as a text file and run a regex to find/exclude certain substrings.

* At the start of this year, because Anthropic and OpenAI were both offering free trials. IDK how much things have changed since then, some things change fast in this domain, other things don't.

[baq]

I’ve been piloting LLMs for the past six months non stop and we’re at the point where formally verified models generated as an intermediate step between spec and code are very good value.

Riding the exponential means you have to update priors more often.

[realusername]

> code that gets the job done and looks ok, maybe even great, but contains small “anomalies” that compound over time

They clearly are only assistants for the moment, you can use them to do work ... but only if you could do the said work yourself alone in the first place.

[ben_w]

I would say "only if you can review said work yourself alone", rather than "do".

I'm an experienced developer, but I don't count myself as a web dev or a python dev; I can review the web and python stuff I get out of the AI (sometimes I need to ask the AI follow-up questions so I can find official documentation for what it did), but I can't write it.

[Foobar8568]

Have you worked with enterprise apps? The ones I have used for decades are hot garbages.

[IsTom]

Now imagine decades of LLM code. Extrapolating the rate of increase of LoC, the source code ain't gonna fit on hard drives anymore.

[sudosysgen]

This is missing a common failure mode, which is information past the knowledge cutoff. If you need info past that time they'll fail no matter how big or small the model is, so the hallucination rate can matter independently of the knowledge base. If all use-cases had a uniform risk of falling out of support, this would be a valid argument, but since it's often the case that a datapoint is guaranteed to fall out of support, the absolute ability to recognize that is crucial.

[reinitctxoffset]

Hallucination should be called "failure to ground".

Something about the cost model of US near frontier has the cattle prod out whenever a model is uncertain but thrashes on whether to search. Search flinch is roughly all hallucination.

I don't even wait for the model's turn, if there's a man page or Hoogle hit, stuff the last prefix cache cut point. You come out ahead.

[grayhatter]

> Hallucination rate scores are a little tricky to interpret because they're conditional on the model not knowing the answer. That means they don't measure the probability of your encountering a hallucination in everyday use, since that also depends on the probability of the model not knowing the answer, as well as how well your distribution of tasks aligns with the distribution tested in the eval.

Do you have a cite for this?

If a human makes up some bullshit lie, I wouldn't accuse them of making it up only if they actually knew the correct answer. If you don't know, the only correct answer is I don't know. Any other answer is made up bullshit. Why is it only a hallucination if and only if the LLM contains the answer? If you make something up it's still wrong. It shouldn't matter if you could give the correct answer. You didn't, and instead invented some bullshit instead?

Follow up question, how can I apply this rule set to the next test I have to take? I'd love to be able to use "I didn't know" as the excuse for why I made something up.

edit:

> and it's not totally clear that this is the main metric that's worth tracking.

I don't know, the rate at which some model is willing to make up something feels useful. If the argument I see repeated on HN so much is that it's impossible to completely get rid of hallucinations; being able to choose a model that's less likely to invent some lie seems like a positive trait, no?

Either way, I'm happy to agree that a restrictive definition, where a lie doesn't count as a hallucination iff the model doesn't know the answer feels strictly, infinitely less useful than an exact error rate. What percentage of emitted tokens are misleading would be useful for me. Anyone know any group that's attempted to quantify the global error rate?

[jpalomaki]

As human I also give wrong answers if if I know the right one. Sometimes I also give answers even when I don’t really know them.

When pushed, I then start thinking and realise my mistake. System 1 vs 2?

[aesthesia]

This isn't quite the point. When comparing two different models' hallucination rates, the denominator is different. The evaluation works more or less like this: for each question, the model has the option to answer or abstain, so there are three possible outcomes: the model answers and gets it right, the model answers and gets it wrong (hallucination), or the model abstains. The hallucination rate is (model answers wrong) / (model answers wrong or abstains). So if a model A has 50 correct answers, 20 incorrect answers, and 30 abstentions, its hallucination rate is 40%, while a model with 20 correct answers, 20 incorrect answers, and 60 abstentions has a hallucination rate of 25%, even though it hallucinated exactly the same number of times. This is why hallucination rate is incomplete as a metric: it says nothing about the accuracy rate.

[sgc]

Since models just output the the most probable tokens and you can never accuse them of doing anything other than making it all up, I would like to see these tests run with a prompt that attempts to mitigate hallucination and finishes with something like: "Telling me that you don't have the relevant information or that the task is impossible is extremely useful to me and a valid answer", and see how much that changes the scoring - as well as the usefulness of the answers. There are so many skills like context7 that can be tweaked to improve these results as well.

In other words, you shouldn't choose the model that hallucinates the least without detailed prompting, since a well-crafted agents.md clause should go a long way to improving output, and almost certainly the top scoring order will be different. To the point that I don't find this type of raw comparison useful beyond maybe 'make sure you test that one with more explicit prompts'.

[grayhatter]

> In other words, you shouldn't choose the model that hallucinates the least without detailed prompting

You're prompting it wrong is quickly becoming the new, you're holding it wrong.

It's wild how willing software engineers are to blame the user when the actual problem is their own defective design.

Ideally we all, as an industry, will stop accepting this as reasonable excuse for the demonstrated incompetence

[luuundonjk]

there is a difference between a human knowingly bullshitting and being confident because he misremembers something

[master-lincoln]

there is a difference in their intent, but not necessarily in the effect.