But how do you do that? The model is a pattern recognition engine and the problem we call "hallucination" is actually that the model is recognizing patterns from data that is similar to, but not an exact match to what we want. In order to eliminate this issue with current architecture it would require a model trained on only the specific data set we want answers to be drawn from. But that isn't a viable solution because just to get responses that aren't total nonsense requires a training set so large as to make this impossible for types of specialized data.
> The model is a pattern recognition engine and the problem we call "hallucination" is actually that the model is recognizing patterns from data that is similar to, but not an exact match to what we want.
But that's a terrible fit for law. In law, the differences really matter.
Maybe two models? One like current LLMs, generating the usual bullshit. A second model trained to map output from the first model to reliable citations or mapping to some value from 0 to 1 predicting the confidence of the models accuracy.
Clearly I am just bullshitting myself here, I don't know how to train the second model. Something mapping text to reliable sources...(waves hands)
But how do you do "reliable citations" with the current architecture? You still have the problem that it is at its core a pattern recognition engine. It will just be "looks similar to all the reliable citations in the training set for similar subjects" not "this is the correct citation for your specific query."
> Something mapping text to reliable sources...(waves hands)
You mean basically Google search? What you want is an intelligent search engine, no such search engine exist today but not due to lack of trying, this is a trillion dollar problem.
Not to say that it is easy in absolute terms, but I'd argue that true/false'ing a statement, e.g. "humans should eat 1 rock a day" is a categorically easier problem than answering "What should humans eat"?
For fun/example I asked gpt3.5 "What percent of dieticians would suggest eating one rock a day is good for your health?" And got a pretty solid if wordy 'none'.
