←back to thread

Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

(dosaygo-studio.github.io)
3338 points keepamovin | 8 comments | 09 Dec 25 15:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.663s | source | bottom
Show context
jll29 ◴[10 Dec 25 12:24 UTC] No.46216933[source]▶
AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested.

Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator used with the "temperature" parameter of neural transformers): token prediction without meaning representation.

[typo fixed]

replies(12): >>46217033 #>>46217061 #>>46217166 #>>46217410 #>>46217456 #>>46217758 #>>46218070 #>>46218282 #>>46218393 #>>46218588 #>>46219018 #>>46219935 #
1. hbn ◴[10 Dec 25 14:27 UTC] No.46218070[source]▶
"Hallucination" has always seemed like a misnomer to me anyway considering LLMs don't know anything. They just impressively get things right enough to be useful assuming you audit the output.

If anything, I think all of their output should be called a hallucination.

replies(3): >>46218173 #>>46218539 #>>46219634 #
2. Workaccount2 ◴[10 Dec 25 14:36 UTC] No.46218173[source]▶
We don't know if anything knows anything because we don't know what knowing is.
replies(2): >>46218427 #>>46218698 #
3. alamortsubite ◴[10 Dec 25 15:00 UTC] No.46218427[source]▶
On the other hand, once you're operating under the model of not knowing if anything knows anything, there's really no point in posting about it here, is there?
4. anonymous_sorry ◴[10 Dec 25 15:10 UTC] No.46218539[source]▶
Others have suggested "bullshit". A bullshitter does not care (and may not know) whether what they say is truth or fiction. A bullshitter's goal is just to be listened to and seem convincing.
replies(1): >>46219276 #
5. stingraycharles ◴[10 Dec 25 15:22 UTC] No.46218698[source]▶
This is just something that sounds profound but really isn’t.

Knowing is actually the easiest part to define and explain. Intelligence / understanding is much more difficult to define.

replies(1): >>46219186 #
6. shagie ◴[10 Dec 25 15:53 UTC] No.46219186{3}[source]▶
I took a semester long 500 level class back in college on the theory of knowledge. It is not easy to define - the entire branch of epistemology in philosophy deals with that question.

... To that end, I'd love to be able to revisit my classes from back then (computer science, philosophy (two classes from a double major), and a smattering of linguistics) with the world state of today's technologies.

7. corygarms ◴[10 Dec 25 15:58 UTC] No.46219276[source]▶
The awareness of the bullshitter is used to differentiate between 'hard' and 'soft' bullshit. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/327588/1/327588.pdf
8. locknitpicker ◴[10 Dec 25 16:20 UTC] No.46219634[source]▶
> "Hallucination" has always seemed like a misnomer to me anyway considering LLMs don't know anything. They just impressively get things right enough to be useful assuming you audit the output.

If you pick up a dictionary and review the definition of "hallucination", you'll see something in the lines of "something that you see, hear, feel or smell that does not exist"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hallucin...

Your own personal definition arguably reinforces the very definition of hallucination. Models don't get things right. Why? Because their output contrasts with content covered by their corpus, thus outputting things that don't exist or were referred in it and outright contrast with factual content.

> If anything, I think all of their output should be called a hallucination.

No. Only the ones that contrast with reality, namely factual information.

Hence the term hallucination.