I suspect people downvote you because the tone of your reply makes it seem like you are personally offended and are now firing back with equally unfounded attacks like a straight up "you are lying".
I read the article but can't find the numbers you are referencing. Maybe there's some paper linked I should be looking at? The only numbers I see are from the SimpleQA chart, which are 37.1% vs 61.8% hallucination rate. That's nice but considering the price increase, is it really that impressive? Also, an often repeated criticism is that relying on known benchmarks is "gaming the numbers" and that the real world hallucination rate could very well be higher.
Lastly, the themselves say:
> We also expect it to hallucinate less.
That's a fairly neutral statement for a press release. If they were convinced that the reduced hallucination rate is the killer feature that sets this model apart from the competition, they surely would have emphasized that more?
All in all I can understand why people would react with some mocking replies to this.
No, because I have a source and didn't make up things someone else said.
> a straight up "you are lying".
Right, because they are. There are hallucination stats right in the post he mocks for not prvoiding stats.
> That's nice but considering the price increase,
I can't believe how quickly you acknowledge it is in the post after calling the idea it was in the post "equally unfounded". You are looking at the stats. They were lying.
> "That's nice but considering the price increase,"
That's nice and a good argument! That's not what I replied to. I replied to they didn't provide any stats.
People being wrong (especially on the internet) doesn't mean they are lying. Lying is being wrong intentionally.
Also, the person you replied to comments on the wording tricks they use. After suddenly bringing new data and direction in the discussion, even calling them "wrong" would have been a stretch.
I kindly suggest that you (and we all!) to keep discussing with an assumption of good faith.
"Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting ["we expect it will hallucinate less"] nearby will lead you to draw a connection there yourself"."
The link, the link we are discussing shows testing, with numbers.
They say "early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less", to provide a basis for a claim of bad faith.
You are claiming that mentioning this is out of bounds if it contains the word lying. I looked up the definition. It says "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."
What am I missing here?
Let's pretend lying means You Are An Evil Person And This Is Personal!!!
How do I describe the fact what they claim is false?
Am I supposed to be sarcastic and pretend They are in on it and edited their post to discredit him after the fact?
That comment is making fun of their wording. Maybe extracting too much meaning from their wordplay? Maybe.
Afterwards, evidence is presented that they did not have to do this, which makes that point not so important, and even wrong.
The commenter was not lying, and they were correct about how masterfully deceiving that sequence of sentences are. They arrived at a wrong conclusion though.
Kindly point that out. Say, "hey, the numbers tell a different story, perhaps they didn't mean/need to make a wordplay there".
No? By the way, what is this comment, exactly? What is it trying to communicate? What I'm understanding is, it is good to talk down to people about how "they can't communicate", but calling a lie a lie is bad, because maybe they were just kidding (lying for fun)
> That comment is making fun of their wording. Maybe extracting too much meaning from their wordplay? Maybe.
What does "maybe" mean here, in terms of symbolical logic?
Their claim "we tested it and it didn't get better" -- and the link shows, they tested it, it did get better! It's pretty cleancut.
> How do I describe the fact what they claim is false?
> Do I need to tell you how to communicate?
That adresses it.
> What does "maybe" mean here, in terms of symbolical logic?
I'm answering my own question to make it clear I'm guessing.
For the rest, I'm sure that we need a break. It's normal get frustrated when many people correct us, or even one passionate individual like you, and we tend to keep going defending (happened here many times too!), because defending is the only thing left. Taking a break always helps. Just a friendly advice, take it or leave it :)
- [It's because] you make an equally unfounded claim
- [It's because] you didn't provide any proof
(Ed.: It is right in the link! I gave the #s! I can't ctrl-F...What else can I do here...AFAIK can't link images...whatever, here's imgur. https://imgur.com/a/mkDxe78)
- [It's because] you sound personally offended
(Ed.: Is "personally" is a shibboleth here, meaning expressing disappointment in people making things up is so triggering as invalidate the communication that it is made up?)
>> This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.
> What am I missing here?
Intent. Neither you nor I know what the person to whom you replied had.
> Those weren't curt summaries, they were quotes! And not pull quotes, they were the unedited beginning of each claim!
Maybe the more important part of that sentence was:
Subsequently railing against comment rankings ...
But you do you.
I commented as I did in hope it helped address what I interpreted as confusion regarding how the posts were being received. If it did not help, I apologize.
