Yeah, on further thought and as I mention in other replies, my thoughts on this are shifting toward the real bug of this being how it’s marketed in many cases (as a digital assistant/research aid) and in turn used, or attempted to be used (as it’s marketed).

perception

This is the problem I take with this, there’s no perception in this software. It’s faulty, misapplied software when one tries to employ it for generating reliable, factual summaries and responses.

It’s not a bad article, honestly, I’m just tired of journalists and academics echoing the language of businesses and their marketing. “Hallucinations” aren’t accurate for this form of AI. These are sophisticated generative text tools, and in my opinion lack any qualities that justify all this fluff terminology personifying them.

Also frankly, I think students have one of the better applications for large-language model AIs than many adults, even those trying to deploy them. Students are using them to do their homework, to generate their papers, exactly one of the basic points of them. Too many adults are acting like these tools should be used in their present form as research aids, but the entire generative basis of them undermines their reliability for this. It’s trying to use the wrong tool for the job.

You don’t want any of the generative capacities of a large-language model AI for research help, you’d instead want whatever text-processing it may be able to do to assemble and provide accurate output.

When I wrote “processing”, I meant it in the sense of getting to that “shape” of an appropriate response you describe. If I’d meant this in a conscious sense I would have written, “poorly understood prompt/query”, for what it’s worth, but I see where you were coming from.

Isn’t it more accurate to say it’s outputting incorrect information from a poorly processed prompt/query?

Is living room a new name for worship space?

Why do tech journalists keep using the businesses’ language about AI, such as “hallucination”, instead of glitching/bugging/breaking?