LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This
arxiv.org
external-link
As Large Language Models become more ubiquitous across domains, it becomes important to examine their inherent limitations critically. This work argues that hallucinations in language models are not just occasional errors but an inevitable feature of these systems. We demonstrate that hallucinations stem from the fundamental mathematical and logical structure of LLMs. It is, therefore, impossible to eliminate them through architectural improvements, dataset enhancements, or fact-checking mechanisms. Our analysis draws on computational theory and Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem, which references the undecidability of problems like the Halting, Emptiness, and Acceptance Problems. We demonstrate that every stage of the LLM process-from training data compilation to fact retrieval, intent classification, and text generation-will have a non-zero probability of producing hallucinations. This work introduces the concept of Structural Hallucination as an intrinsic nature of these systems. By establishing the mathematical certainty of hallucinations, we challenge the prevailing notion that they can be fully mitigated.

There is a lot of hype around LLMs, and other forms of AI certainly should be getting more attention, but arguing that this tech no value is simply disingenuous. People really need to stop perseverating over the fact that this tech exists because it’s not going anywhere.

Any benefits are by far outweighted by the cost and dangers.

Tell me more about the value when every LLM company is hemorrhaging money.

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
15h

You seem to have a very US centric perspective on this tech the situation in China looks to be quite different. Meanwhile, whether you personally think the benefits are outweighed by whatever dangers you envision, the reality is that you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube at this point. LLMs will continue to be developed. The only question is how that’s going to be done and who will control this tech. I’d much rather see it developed in the open.

You dense motherfucker.

No LLMs are being developed in the open.

Even provided weights mean nothing.

It’s not knowledge LLMs retain, just the ingressed text.

LLMs should be skipped after confirming that they are indeed a dead end they always were. And the entire world should focus on anything else.

@msage @yogthos I don’t know if I agree 100% with this, but I do like what you’re saying.

It seems like all the AI companies are simply hoping AGI emerges from it and nobody is doing the actual research to make that happen.

People were researching it when I was a child and I suspect they’ll still be researching it when I’m collecting my pension.

Create a post

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

  • 1 user online
  • 73 users / day
  • 117 users / week
  • 361 users / month
  • 1.49K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 4.3K Posts
  • 49.4K Comments
  • Modlog