Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Conversely, a pair of examples where it was incorrect hardly justifies the opposite response.

If you want a more scientific answer there is this recent paper: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/gsm-symbolic



It kind of does though, because it means you can never trust the output to be correct. The error is a much bigger deal than it being correct in a specific case.


You can never trust the outputs of humans to be correct but we find ways of verifying and correcting mistakes. The same extra layer is needed for LLMs.


> It kind of does though, because it means you can never trust the output to be correct.

Maybe some HN commenters will finally learn the value of uncertainty then.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: