GPT-5 为啥不 “胡说” 了？OpenAI 新论文讲透了

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the advancements and challenges of OpenAI's GPT-5, particularly focusing on the significant reduction in hallucination rates compared to previous models, while also highlighting the underlying mechanisms and implications of these changes [5][6][25]. Group 1: Hallucination Rates and Mechanisms - GPT-5 has a hallucination rate that is approximately 45% lower than GPT-4 and about 80% lower than OpenAI's earlier models [6]. - The reduction in hallucination rates is attributed to enhanced reinforcement learning techniques that allow models to refine their reasoning processes and recognize their errors [8][9]. - The paper published by OpenAI indicates that hallucinations are an inevitable byproduct of the statistical learning nature of language models, making it more challenging to generate reliable information than to assess its reliability [12][16]. Group 2: Theoretical Framework - OpenAI introduces a theoretical "Is-It-Valid" (IIV) judgment mechanism that determines the validity of generated sentences based on their internal probabilities [13]. - The model's tendency to generate plausible-sounding but incorrect information is exacerbated by data sparsity, complexity, and noise in training data [14][16]. - The mathematical conclusion presented in the paper suggests that the error rate of generative models is at least double that of the IIV judgment errors, indicating a compounding effect of judgment mistakes on hallucinations [15][16]. Group 3: Post-Training Challenges - Post-training processes have not effectively mitigated hallucinations, as current evaluation metrics tend to reward models for providing confident but potentially incorrect answers [18][24]. - The article critiques the binary scoring systems used in mainstream AI evaluations, which penalize uncertainty and discourage models from expressing "I don't know" [21][24]. - The reinforcement learning processes that utilize binary reward paths may inadvertently promote overconfidence in models, leading to increased hallucination rates [27][29]. Group 4: Future Directions and Solutions - The article suggests that introducing a penalty-based scoring mechanism during post-training could help models better calibrate their confidence levels and reduce hallucinations [33]. - A shift from a score-optimization focus to a truth-oriented approach is proposed as a potential solution to the hallucination problem [34].