For those of you who didn’t read the paper, the argument they’re making is similar to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem: no matter how you build your LLM, there will be a significant number of prompts that make that LLM hallucinate. If the proof holds up then hallucinations aren’t a limitation of the training data or the structure of your particular model, they’re a limitation of the very concept of an LLM. That doesn’t make LLMs useless, but it does mean you shouldn’t ever use one as a source of truth.

Lemmy scratches the Reddit itch for me. It doesn’t have all my old niche communities yet, but it’s got enough for me to log on and see what’s happening in the Internet.

Also, I haven’t been pestered to use an app since I got here, which is so nice. Reddit was getting more and more aggressive about that before I quit.