<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.07567/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.07567/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversation — mentioned by salamo</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34298471</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.07567:34298471</guid><pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2023 12:18:13 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;ChatGPT is wrong about the current conversation for the same reasons it is wrong about the rest of the world: it has no model for either one. This is a hypothesis of course. It could be that it holds valid structural relationships between real-world things in its billions of parameters and we just don&amp;#x27;t know how to unlock them. But I think that&amp;#x27;s unlikely. No, you can get pretty good results just by sleepwalking through a conversation, predicting the next most likely word. (This is the most interesting thing to me, our conversations are a lot more predictable than we might think.) This…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.07567/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
