5 ms·

Does every thread about this topic have to have someone quibbling about the word “hallucination”, which is already an established term of art with a well unders

Does every thread about this topic have to have someone quibbling about the word “hallucination”, which is already an established term of art with a well understood meaning? It’s getting exhausting.

keiferski 2y ago
The term hallucination is a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work, and continuing to use it will ultimately result in a confused picture of what AI and AGI are and what is "actually happening" under the hood. Wanting to use accurate language isn't exhausting, it's a requirement if you want to think about and discuss problems clearly.
- phist_mcgee 2y ago
  Arguing about semantics rarely keeps topics on track, e.g, my reply to your comment.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    "Arguing about semantics" implies that there is no real difference between calling something A vs. calling it B. I don't think that's the case here: there is a very real difference between describing something with a model that implies one (false) thing vs. a model that doesn't have that flaw. If you don't find that convincing, then consider this: by taking the time to properly define things at the beginning, you'll save yourself a ton of time later on down the line – as you don't need to untangle the mess that resulted from being sloppy with definitions at the start. This is all a long way of saying that aiming to clarify your thoughts is not the same as arguing pointlessly over definitions.
    - andybak 2y ago
      "Computer" used to mean the job done by a human being. We chose to use the meaning to refer to machines that did similar tasks. Nobody quibbles about it any more. Words can mean more than one thing. And sometimes the new meaning is significantly different but once everyone accepts it, there's no confusion. You're arguing that we shouldn't accept the new meaning - not that "it doesn't mean that" (because that's not how language works). I think it's fine - we'll get used to it and it's close enough as a metaphor to work.
      - its_ethan 2y ago
        I'd be willing to bet that people did quibble about what "computer" meant at the time the meaning was transitioning. It feels like you're assuming that we're already 60 years past re-defining "hallucination" and the consensus is established, but the fact that people are quibbling about it right now is a sign that the definition is currently in transition/ has not reached consensus. What value is there in trying to shut down the consensus-seeking discussion that gave us "computer"? The same logic could be used arguing that "computers" are actually be called "calculators" and why are people still trying to call it a "computer"?
DidYaWipe 2y ago
Does every completely legitimate condemnation of erroneous language have to be whined about by some apologist for linguistic erosion?
baq 2y ago
you stole a term which means something else in an established domain and now assert that the ship has sailed, whereas a perfectly valid term in both domains exists. don't be a lazy smartass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
- nsvd 2y ago
  This is exactly how language works; words are adopted across domains and change meaning over time.
  - baq 2y ago
    If there's any forum which can influence a more correct name for a concept it's this one, so please excuse me while I try to point out that contemporary LLMs confabulate and hallucinating should be reserved for more capable models.
- criddell 2y ago
  That's actually what the paper is about. I don't know why they didn't use that in the title. > Here we develop new methods grounded in statistics, proposing entropy-based uncertainty estimators for LLMs to detect a subset of hallucinations—confabulations—which are arbitrary and incorrect generations.
intended 2y ago
The paper itself talks about this, so yes?
criddell 2y ago
If the meaning was established and well understood, this wouldn't happen in every thread.
- mistercow 2y ago
  It’s well understood in the field. It’s not well understood by laymen. This is not a problem that people working in the field need to address in their literature.
  - criddell 2y ago
    We're mostly laymen here.
slashdave 2y ago
It is exhausting, but so is the misconception that the output of an LLM can be cleanly divided into two categories.

keiferski 2y ago

The term hallucination is a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work, and continuing to use it will ultimately result in a confused picture of what AI and AGI are and what is "actually happening" under the hood. Wanting to use accurate language isn't exhausting, it's a requirement if you want to think about and discuss problems clearly.

phist_mcgee 2y ago
Arguing about semantics rarely keeps topics on track, e.g, my reply to your comment.
- keiferski 2y ago
  "Arguing about semantics" implies that there is no real difference between calling something A vs. calling it B. I don't think that's the case here: there is a very real difference between describing something with a model that implies one (false) thing vs. a model that doesn't have that flaw. If you don't find that convincing, then consider this: by taking the time to properly define things at the beginning, you'll save yourself a ton of time later on down the line – as you don't need to untangle the mess that resulted from being sloppy with definitions at the start. This is all a long way of saying that aiming to clarify your thoughts is not the same as arguing pointlessly over definitions.
  - andybak 2y ago
    "Computer" used to mean the job done by a human being. We chose to use the meaning to refer to machines that did similar tasks. Nobody quibbles about it any more. Words can mean more than one thing. And sometimes the new meaning is significantly different but once everyone accepts it, there's no confusion. You're arguing that we shouldn't accept the new meaning - not that "it doesn't mean that" (because that's not how language works). I think it's fine - we'll get used to it and it's close enough as a metaphor to work.
    - its_ethan 2y ago
      I'd be willing to bet that people did quibble about what "computer" meant at the time the meaning was transitioning. It feels like you're assuming that we're already 60 years past re-defining "hallucination" and the consensus is established, but the fact that people are quibbling about it right now is a sign that the definition is currently in transition/ has not reached consensus. What value is there in trying to shut down the consensus-seeking discussion that gave us "computer"? The same logic could be used arguing that "computers" are actually be called "calculators" and why are people still trying to call it a "computer"?

DidYaWipe 2y ago

Does every completely legitimate condemnation of erroneous language have to be whined about by some apologist for linguistic erosion?

baq 2y ago

you stole a term which means something else in an established domain and now assert that the ship has sailed, whereas a perfectly valid term in both domains exists. don't be a lazy smartass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

nsvd 2y ago
This is exactly how language works; words are adopted across domains and change meaning over time.
- baq 2y ago
  If there's any forum which can influence a more correct name for a concept it's this one, so please excuse me while I try to point out that contemporary LLMs confabulate and hallucinating should be reserved for more capable models.
criddell 2y ago
That's actually what the paper is about. I don't know why they didn't use that in the title. > Here we develop new methods grounded in statistics, proposing entropy-based uncertainty estimators for LLMs to detect a subset of hallucinations—confabulations—which are arbitrary and incorrect generations.

intended 2y ago

The paper itself talks about this, so yes?

criddell 2y ago

If the meaning was established and well understood, this wouldn't happen in every thread.

mistercow 2y ago
It’s well understood in the field. It’s not well understood by laymen. This is not a problem that people working in the field need to address in their literature.
- criddell 2y ago
  We're mostly laymen here.

slashdave 2y ago

It is exhausting, but so is the misconception that the output of an LLM can be cleanly divided into two categories.