[raynr]

As a layman, this too strikes me as the problem underlying the "confidently wrong" problem.

The author proposes ways for an AI to signal when it is wrong and to learn from its mistakes. But that mechanism feeds back to the core next token matcher. Isn't this just replicating the problem with extra steps?

I feel like this is a framing problem. It's not that an LLM is mostly correct and just sometimes confabulates or is "confidently wrong". It's that an LLM is confabulating all the time, and all the techniques thrown at it do is increase the measured incidence of LLM confabulations matching expected benchmark answers.