• calcopiritus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    No it is not. It is the same as saying you can’t have coal energy production without production of CO2. At most, you can capture that CO2 and do something with it instead of releasing to the atmosphere.

    You can have energy production without CO2. Like solar or wind, but that is not coal energy production. It’s something else. In order to remove CO2 from coal energy production, we had to switch to different technologies.

    In the same way, if you want to not have hallucinations, you should move away from LLMs.

    • FreedomAdvocate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      What computers do now was considered “impossible” once. What cars do now was considered “impossible” once. That’s my point - saying absolutes like “impossible” in tech is a giant red flag.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ll remember this post when someone manages to make a human fly by tieing a cow to their feet.

      • MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Technological impossibilities exist all the time. They’re one of, if not the biggest, drivers behind engineering and design.

        • FreedomAdvocate
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Technological impossibilities exist all the time.

          This isn’t one of those times. We’re just scratching the surface of AI. Anyone saying anything absolute like it’s impossible for them to not hallucinate is saying “No one should listen to me”.

          • MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Let me ask you this

            Take a CPU designed in the last 80 years. Ask it to divide integer 1 by integer 2. Explain to me why the CPU hands back 0 and not 0.5.

            Technical solutions do have fundamental limitations to them that cannot be overcome. That scenario plays out all the time. We didn’t overcome integer division by brute force, we acknowledged that the approach of having computers use integers for numbers is flawed and came up with a bunch of possible solutions until finally settling on IEEE754 and even then it still doesn’t handle all math correctly.

            Blindly saying such issues can be overcome is, imho, the truly stupid statement