The raw runs are useful, but plausibility alone seems like a weak way to distinguish memorization from hallucination.
I’d be curious to see a control set using random name pairs and the same number of trials. Then you could compare how often rare names, exact phrases, dates, or other specific details recur across fresh sessions.
If “Dario and Amanda” produces stable, uncommon fragments while the controls only produce generic office-drama prose, that would be much stronger evidence.
I’d be curious to see a control set using random name pairs and the same number of trials. Then you could compare how often rare names, exact phrases, dates, or other specific details recur across fresh sessions.
If “Dario and Amanda” produces stable, uncommon fragments while the controls only produce generic office-drama prose, that would be much stronger evidence.
Have you tried running that comparison?