Evaluating 35 open-weight models across three context lengths (32K, 128K, 200K), four temperatures, and three hardware platforms—consuming 172 billion tokens across more than 4,000 runs—we find that the answer is “substantially, and unavoidably.” Even under optimal conditions—best model, best temperature, temperature chosen specifically to minimize fabrication—the floor is non-zero and rises steeply with context length. At 32K, the best model (GLM 4.5) fabricates 1.19% of answers, top-tier models fabricate 5–7%, and the median model fabricates roughly 25%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 8 months ago (6 children)

That's my problem: any single word humanizes the tool in my opinion. Iperhaps something like "stochastic debris" comes close but there's no chance to counter the common force of pop culture, Corp speak a and humanities talent to see humanoid behavior everywhere but each other. :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    We do enjoy pareidolia, don't we?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Paredolia just means seeing patterns that aren’t there, it’s not implicitly human. If you see a dog in the clouds, that’s paredolia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Great, when did I say otherwise? Pareidolia is a thing humans do, because we like patterns. Finding patterns is something that has benefited our species, but it is sometimes so strong that we see faces in electrical outlets or the shape of a car's front profile (for example).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    I mean, it doesn’t really follow given the context. Nobody is talking about the visual sense, they’re talking about humanizing AI through using certain words, which isn’t paredolia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments