Your comment is phrased as if it somehow refutes their point but it doesn't.
> Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point.
If you're asserting that this is not the case today then that's going to be require pretty extraordinary evidence. "Chatbots use Google now" is not evidence that the information they provide is in fact correct.
They don't hallucinate all the time like they used to, no, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of these sorts of conversations were free of major factual errors.
I frequently notice degradation in the model model's ability to remain coherent when it searches for information online. For example I might ask Sonnet 5 "how do I build a shed" and during its search it presumably comes across an article which talks about building a shed out of paper mache, then the model responds with something like "I caution you against your plan to build a shed out of paper mache" -- Wait, what? Who said anything about building it out of paper mache?
> Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point.
If you're asserting that this is not the case today then that's going to be require pretty extraordinary evidence. "Chatbots use Google now" is not evidence that the information they provide is in fact correct.
They don't hallucinate all the time like they used to, no, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of these sorts of conversations were free of major factual errors.
I frequently notice degradation in the model model's ability to remain coherent when it searches for information online. For example I might ask Sonnet 5 "how do I build a shed" and during its search it presumably comes across an article which talks about building a shed out of paper mache, then the model responds with something like "I caution you against your plan to build a shed out of paper mache" -- Wait, what? Who said anything about building it out of paper mache?