• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Can we normalize not calling them hallucinations? They’re not hallucinations. They are fabrications; lies. We should not be romanticizing a robot lying to us.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Pretty engrained vocabulary at this point. Lies implies intent. I would have preferred “errors”

      Also, for the record, this is the most dystopian headline I’ve come across to date.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If a human does not know an answer to a question, yet they make some shit up instead of saying “I don’t know”, what would you call that?

        • ramirezmike@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 hours ago

          that’s a lie. They knowingly made something up. The AI doesn’t know what it’s saying so it’s not lying. “Hallucinating” isn’t a perfect word but it’s much more accurate than “lying.”

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I like fabrication going forward. Clearly made up, doesn’t imply intent

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This should be cause for contempt. This isn’t much worse, IMO, than a legal briefing mentioning, “as affirmed in the case of Pee-pee v.s Poo-poo.” They’re basically taking a shit on the process by not verifying their arguments.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      AI’s second innovation, besides letting you mass fire labor, is removing all blame for any decision as long as you can thinly point to AI being involved.

      It outsources responsibility, and our legal/political/moral systems are not built to handle it.

      • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        But it legally doesn’t. That is why AI has not taken over in high liability fields. Morons are testing the waters and learning that AI mistakes make no difference in a court room, and if anything are grounds for further evidence of negligence.

        The big bet now, I think, is whether those popup insurance policies regarding coverage for losses relates to AI usage end up profitable. If so, that is what will lead to truly dystopian stories like “AI piloted passenger jet crashes, United Airlines fined x million dollars but happily continues using AI pilots because insurance covered the fine and it’s just a cost of doing business”

    • missingno@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Because they’re professionals in unrelated fields. Understanding AI was never part of their job description, this strange and confusing technology snuck up on everyone and most people don’t really know what’s going on, they were never ready for this.