3 ms·

Technically, "bullshit" is the most accurate term. From "On Bullshit" by Professor Harry Frankfurt: "What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, b

Technically, "bullshit" is the most accurate term. From "On Bullshit" by Professor Harry Frankfurt: "What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made. This points to a similar and fundamental aspect of the essential nature of bullshit: although it is produced without concern with the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong." Both "hallucinations" and valuable output are produced by exactly the same process: bullshitting. LLMs do for bullshitting what computers do for arithmetic.

bastawhiz 2y ago
So the verb is "bullshitting" which does an even worse job of avoiding anthropomorphizing or attributing sentience to the model. At least "hallucinating" isn't done with conscious effort; "bullshitting" implies effort.
- chaosist 2y ago
  Frankfurt's use of bullshit is what has always came to my mind also but you make an excellent point. I think we really need a new word for this process because it really is just not comparable to anything previously. Unfortunately, "hallucinate" is a horse that has left the barn with seemingly no possible way of replacing the horse at this point.
  - empthought 2y ago
    It's a computer bullshitting, the same way as a computer calculating is comparable to a human calculating unaided by a computer.
- empthought 2y ago
  No, it ascribes accountability to the humans who employ a bullshitting machine to bullshit more effectively. It doesn't anthropomorphize anything, any more than "calculating" anthropomorphizes a computer doing arithmetic.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    If you can ascribe accountability of "bullshitting" or "calculating" to the human who's using the machine then there's exactly no reason "thinking" or "writing" can't be ascribed to the human who's using the machine. There's no obvious line where the semantics of some words should or should not apply to a machine for behaviors that (up until recently) only applied to humans.

bastawhiz 2y ago

So the verb is "bullshitting" which does an even worse job of avoiding anthropomorphizing or attributing sentience to the model. At least "hallucinating" isn't done with conscious effort; "bullshitting" implies effort.

chaosist 2y ago
Frankfurt's use of bullshit is what has always came to my mind also but you make an excellent point. I think we really need a new word for this process because it really is just not comparable to anything previously. Unfortunately, "hallucinate" is a horse that has left the barn with seemingly no possible way of replacing the horse at this point.
- empthought 2y ago
  It's a computer bullshitting, the same way as a computer calculating is comparable to a human calculating unaided by a computer.
empthought 2y ago
No, it ascribes accountability to the humans who employ a bullshitting machine to bullshit more effectively. It doesn't anthropomorphize anything, any more than "calculating" anthropomorphizes a computer doing arithmetic.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  If you can ascribe accountability of "bullshitting" or "calculating" to the human who's using the machine then there's exactly no reason "thinking" or "writing" can't be ascribed to the human who's using the machine. There's no obvious line where the semantics of some words should or should not apply to a machine for behaviors that (up until recently) only applied to humans.