[TonyAlicea10]

I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work.

And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic.

And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them.

That is a problem both ideologically and pragmatically. You have to think long-term.

On a side note: ask an LLM to write a story at a 4-9 year old level. Work with it for awhile doing iterations and it will hallucinate a previous detail or change a character name as context rots. Lots of other examples of "basic" topics that still produce hallucinations.

[senordevnyc]

The common sense part is not holding LLMs to a standard of absolute perfection that literally no other medium, or humans, can reach.

You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.

[TonyAlicea10]

You were skeptical that LLMs would hallucinate on topics for children and you said it was common sense.

But now you’re saying the common sense is that they will hallucinate.

[senordevnyc]

Man, it must be exhausting to have reading comprehension this bad.

Let’s try again: your claim is that LLMs “make up stuff all the time”, so they can’t be used to educate children.

I’m saying that modern SOTA models do not make up stuff all the time as it pertains to the topics a child of 4-9 would learn. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect or will never make mistakes, but there’s zero reason to think such issues would be widespread. And common sense would tell you that perfection is not required for LLMS to be a net positive in education.

I’m sure you’ll have another vapid rejoinder, but this has been boring for awhile and you seem to be enjoying being obtuse, so I’m moving on.