Readit NewsNo it wouldn’t. If the LLM produces an output that does not match the training data or claims things that are not in the training data due to pseudorandom statistical processes then that’s a hallucination. If it accurately represents the training data or context content, it’s not a hallucination.
Similarly, if you request that an LLM tells you something false and the information it provided is false, that’s not a hallucination.
> The point of original comment was distinguishing between fact and fiction,
In the context of LLMs, fact means something represented in the training set. Not factual in an absolute, philosophical sense.
If you put a lot of categorically false information into the training corpus and train an LLM on it, those pieces of information are “factual” in the context of the LLM output.
The key part of the parent comment:
> caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator
If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed.
Matters of access to the training corpus are a separate issue.
That would mean that there is never any hallucination.
The point of original comment was distinguishing between fact and fiction, which an LLM just cannot do. (It's an unsolved problem among humans, which spills into the training data)
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
Used to be that you had to purchase an officer's commission...
Half of households in the congestion zone are living at or below 3x federal poverty level ($70K for a family of three). One in six residents makes $20K or less a year.
You mean to say people without cars are paying the congestion tax? :P