4 ms·

I agree with your assessment of the term "BS" in this context. It implies intent to deceive, which is not the case at all. The LLM isn't trying to "bullshit"

I agree with your assessment of the term "BS" in this context. It implies intent to deceive, which is not the case at all. The LLM isn't trying to "bullshit" anyone. It's just doing the thing it was built to do; statistically string words together. I'm not in favor of "hallucinate" however, as it implies the LLM is "visualizing" something (a "thought" process of some sort) even if something entirely "fantastical" and wrong. That's not what an LLM does. An LLM strings words together using statistics and fancy math. It's really amazing at what it does, but folks are bein' fooled by how well it "fakes it", and thinkin' there's some sorta "logic" or "thought" process behind what it does, and there really truly is not. It's all fancy math "all the way down".

cratermoon 2y ago
If you'll read the article past the 2nd paragraph, you'll see that BS has a formal academic meaning that does not, imply any intent to deceive.
- aoeusnth1 2y ago
  Oh, so they took a word with a commonly understood meaning and redefined it to mean “hallucinating.” Then they wrote a paper about it!
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    I never assumed intent in bullshitting. I don't think I've ever seen someone else assume it either but that might be clouded by my own biases. Do you have any data on how common it is for people to interpret bullshit as intentional vs not? OTOH, "hallucination" is defined by Cambridge [0] as: > the experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, or smelling something that does not exist That can clearly not be the case for an LLM as it lacks the senses to see, hear, feel or smell. Arguably, some systems can see and hear but I don't think they would be able to sense anything that does not exist. The dictionary follows on by including LLM hallucinations in its definition, but this seems irrelevant since that's exactly what's in dispute in this post. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hallucination https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hallucin...
  - bryant 2y ago
    The term was introduced academically in 1986 with the essay "On Bullshit" by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt. It's been widely cited since then, often unironically.

cratermoon 2y ago

If you'll read the article past the 2nd paragraph, you'll see that BS has a formal academic meaning that does not, imply any intent to deceive.

aoeusnth1 2y ago
Oh, so they took a word with a commonly understood meaning and redefined it to mean “hallucinating.” Then they wrote a paper about it!
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  I never assumed intent in bullshitting. I don't think I've ever seen someone else assume it either but that might be clouded by my own biases. Do you have any data on how common it is for people to interpret bullshit as intentional vs not? OTOH, "hallucination" is defined by Cambridge [0] as: > the experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, or smelling something that does not exist That can clearly not be the case for an LLM as it lacks the senses to see, hear, feel or smell. Arguably, some systems can see and hear but I don't think they would be able to sense anything that does not exist. The dictionary follows on by including LLM hallucinations in its definition, but this seems irrelevant since that's exactly what's in dispute in this post. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hallucination https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hallucin...
- bryant 2y ago
  The term was introduced academically in 1986 with the essay "On Bullshit" by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt. It's been widely cited since then, often unironically.