3 ms·
The use of "hallucinate" is also my gripe. Philosophy of language, and Wittgenstein in particular, has more specific words for the output insofar as they mean
by beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
The use of "hallucinate" is also my gripe.
Philosophy of language, and Wittgenstein in particular, has more specific words for the output insofar as they mean anything to humans: "senseless" or "nonsense".
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoBut I don't think those terms are accurate. If I say "John Doe was born in 1987", that's a perfectly sensible sentence, even if I don't actually know when he was born and even if it turns out he was actually born in 1971. A nonsense sentence would be something like "John Doe cat five green explicate" or "h4stga3jkui7rutjdyrst".
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y agoI don't understand your point. You've just re-presented one difference between sense and nonsense in philosophy of language. We might call that first phrase wrong or an error or inaccurate if that was the case. We don't need to use a word like "hallucinate" for your second phrase --- we can just call it nonsense. "Hallucinate" is far more inaccurate and confusing. It paints a false picture that melds 2 distinct things, as you've described, which need not happen at the same time: errors and nonsense.
- Iulioh 2y agoI think the term forst originated with the dream-like images of google deepmind, these were really similar to human visual hallucinations, i guess the term stuck
- leptons 2y agoIt's unfortunate, but it is what it is. When a human hallucinates, that is due to the brain operating out of spec. When an LLM "hallucinates", it's performing exactly as intended, it just has delivered a nonsensical result which is the consequence of the tech behind the LLM.