50
AI machines aren’t ‘hallucinating’. But their makers are | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian (amp.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tech CEOs want us to believe that generative AI will benefit humanity. They are kidding themselves

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

"hallucination" works because everything an LLM outputs is equally true from its perspective. trying to change the word "hallucination" seems to usually lead to the implication that LLMs are lying which is not possible. they don't currently have the capacity to lie because they don't have intent and they don't have a theory of mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    Well neither can it hallucinate by the "not being able to lie" standard. To hallucinate would mean there was some other correct baseline behavior from which hallucinating is deviation.

    LLM is not a mind, one shouldn't use words like lie or hallucinate about it. That antromorphises a mechanistic algorhitm.

    This is simply algorhitm producing arbitrary answers with no validity to reality checks on the results. Since neither are those times it happens to produce correct answer "not hallucinating". It is hallucinating or not hallucinating exactly as much regardless of the correctness of the answer. Since its just doing it's algorhitmic thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The evolution is fast. We have AI with a theory of mind:

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/ai-chatbot-spontaneously-develops-a-theory-of-mind

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Do we have a AI with a theory of mind or just a AI that answers the questions in the test correctly?

    Now whether or not there is a difference between those two things is more of a philosophical debate. But assuming there is a difference, I would argue it's the latter. It has likely seen many similar examples during training (the prompts are in the article you linked, it's not unlikely to have similar texts in a web-scraped training set) and even if not, it's not that difficult to extrapolate those answers from the many texts it must've read where a character was surprised at an item missing that that character didn't see being stolen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •