o3 hallucinates significantly less often than non-reasoning models or than o1. I did check the numbers provided and they map to actual figures in the papers. You can see for yourself that it genuinely can locate exactly where I was in Guatemala. They make mistakes, but at this point, they make them less often than human researchers do.
o3 hallucinates significantly less often than non-reasoning models or than o1. I did check the numbers provided and they map to actual figures in the papers. You can see for yourself that it genuinely can locate exactly where I was in Guatemala. They make mistakes, but at this point, they make them less often than human researchers do.
They also make different sorts of mistakes to humans. Some things we find trivial they cannot do, and some things they can trivial we cannot do.
o3 hallucinates significantly less often than non-reasoning models or than o1. I did check the numbers provided and they map to actual figures in the papers. You can see for yourself that it genuinely can locate exactly where I was in Guatemala. They make mistakes, but at this point, they make them less often than human researchers do.
They also make different sorts of mistakes to humans. Some things we find trivial they cannot do, and some things they can trivial we cannot do.
I agree entirely that they're getting better all the time. That's why I'm repeatedly surprised by hallucinated books and papers :)