Fluorescent tubes FTW (also soon to be banned for this use):
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Both are anthropomorphizations, implying some kind of "thought" process which doesn't exist.
The generated text is wrong, false, inaccurate. I don't think we really need a jargon-y term for it.
Perhaps with both 'hallucination' and 'confabulation' there are suggestions of both thought and absence of thought. The former suggestions are likely anthropomorphic. Suggesting some seamless lack of thought might not be?
Yes, 100% agree. See <https://universeodon.com/@siderea/109883198218504351> for some thoughts. I think we're stuck with the term 'hallucination' in most usage, if for no other reason than cognitive sloth.
Good link. And perhaps to be even less misleading above, LLM Confabulation. As another comment says, not fixable within the LLM.
Well, I agree with your general sentiment to a point, but I would say that in the lexicon of the day, "AI" and "LLM" are not synonymous. LLM's are one (current very popular and useful) approach to AI, but only a VERY casual observer would conflate the two terms as being completely equivalent. To me, it goes without saying that the world of AI is bigger than just LLM's.
But since we're talking about an article in Fortune, maybe it's fair to think of this strictly from a lay-person perspective.
Also, to the extent that it matters, I'm not necessarily saying "build something (completely) different than an LLM". I can picture a world with systems that include LLM's that interoperate with other components that do more of the "world model" and "commonsense reasoning" parts, yielding an aggregate system that does more/better than any of the parts could do in isolation.
From 2008 there was How to Build a Person by John Pollock. I don't recall whether he included some putative "explainer" disciplined by other components.
I believe a more accurate term would be AI confabulation.
When one confabulates, one shamelessly inserts words which sound smooth and grammatical and potentially acceptable to a listener (and the speaker), but shamelessly with no hesitation or corrections to achieve actual truth.
I suspect there needs to be some layering on of reflection and inhibition to avoid this.
Is there any HN effect by which enough contrary early opinion here could increase the odds of eventual triumph?
On the chance that there is, I will do my part:
In mice.
I'm not sure whether higher currents are all that reasonable. Cooling the precision amp is an option to reduce the noise figure, but at that point you'll want optical isolation and battery supply too.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/...
All my instincts would prefer they were using the AC 4-wire option, given any reason to question results, and/or issues with contact effects, etc.