They're reliable already if you change the way you approach them. These probabilistic token generators probably never will be "reliable" if you expect them to 100% always output exactly what you had in mind, without iterating in user-space (the prompts).
That's literally the wrong way to use LLMs though.
LLMs think in tokens, the less they emit the dumber they are, so asking them to be concise, or to give the answer before explanation, is extremely counterproductive.
This is relevant. Your example may be simple enough, but for anything more complex, letting the model have its space to think/compute is critical to reliability - if you starve it for compute, you'll get more errors/hallucinations.
Yeah I mean I agree with you, but I'm still not sure how it's relevant. I'd also urge people to have unit tests they treat as production code, and proper system prompts, and X and Y, but it's really beyond the original point of "LLMs aren't reliable" which is the context in this sub-tree.
Which model? Just tried a bunch of ChatGPT, OpenAI's API, Claude, Anthropic's API and DeepSeek's API with both chat and reasonee, every single one replied with a single "hi".
