• mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Because many people still don’t understand that AI isn’t a reliable source of info. I have seen people use it to fact-check things in arguments before, as if it would actually give them a factual answer.

      • Kornblumenratte@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is far worse than being not a reliable source of info. Ms Chen had all the info she needed, and Claude falsified it.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months 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.

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

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

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        1
        ·
        2 months 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?

        • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you train a parrot to say “I can do calculus!” and then you ask it if it can do calculus, it’ll say “I can do calculus!”. It can’t actually do calculus, so would you say the parrot is lying?

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months 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.