They actually did test GPT-5: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec8352 (see the figure under Conclusion). Its rate of endorsement of user action, 52%, was the same as GPT-4o. So based on their setup it seems…
In STEM/objective matters (math, science, coding), answers are more clearly defined as either right or wrong. This is where hallucination is more difficult/unlikely. But in personal matters, everything is subjective. AI…
The temperature clamp fix and "Optuna++" actions by the agents (the cause of basically all improvement to eCLIP) indicate they are good at finding bugs and hyper-parameter tuning. But when it comes to anything beyond…
They actually did test GPT-5: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec8352 (see the figure under Conclusion). Its rate of endorsement of user action, 52%, was the same as GPT-4o. So based on their setup it seems…
In STEM/objective matters (math, science, coding), answers are more clearly defined as either right or wrong. This is where hallucination is more difficult/unlikely. But in personal matters, everything is subjective. AI…
The temperature clamp fix and "Optuna++" actions by the agents (the cause of basically all improvement to eCLIP) indicate they are good at finding bugs and hyper-parameter tuning. But when it comes to anything beyond…