Yeah, on further thought and as I mention in other replies, my thoughts on this are shifting toward the real bug of this being how it's marketed in many cases (as a digital assistant/research aid) and in turn used, or attempted to be used (as it's marketed).
ALostInquirer
joined 1 year ago
perception
This is the problem I take with this, there's no perception in this software. It's faulty, misapplied software when one tries to employ it for generating reliable, factual summaries and responses.
It's not a bad article, honestly, I'm just tired of journalists and academics echoing the language of businesses and their marketing. "Hallucinations" aren't accurate for this form of AI. These are sophisticated generative text tools, and in my opinion lack any qualities that justify all this fluff terminology personifying them.
Also frankly, I think students have one of the better applications for large-language model AIs than many adults, even those trying to deploy them. Students are using them to do their homework, to generate their papers, exactly one of the basic points of them. Too many adults are acting like these tools should be used in their present form as research aids, but the entire generative basis of them undermines their reliability for this. It's trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
You don't want any of the generative capacities of a large-language model AI for research help, you'd instead want whatever text-processing it may be able to do to assemble and provide accurate output.
While largely true, I was also thinking of filtering/sorting systems within specific sites (e.g. stores/archives/etc.) as well, which may result in similar junk results but fewer than with a search engine.
Tbh I didn't mean to Lemmy, so much as simply off Twitter in general, preferably to a non-corporate social site. It may be naive/idealistic, but I think those most inclined to leave would be the better of the bunch, and those in-between are more apt to go to another corporate site anyway (e.g. Threads).
When I wrote "processing", I meant it in the sense of getting to that "shape" of an appropriate response you describe. If I'd meant this in a conscious sense I would have written, "poorly understood prompt/query", for what it's worth, but I see where you were coming from.
(AI confidently BSing)
Isn't it more accurate to say it's outputting incorrect information from a poorly processed prompt/query?
Do the add-ons you use specifically target Facebook? If so, what are you using to mitigate its manipulative/predatory designs?
Why do tech journalists keep using the businesses' language about AI, such as "hallucination", instead of glitching/bugging/breaking?
How might we help and encourage people to leave Twitter?
Do people think it's a good thing, or simply the thing where those they know are?
Fun part is, that article cites a paper mentioning misgivings with the terminology: AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying. So at the very least I'm not alone on this.