Technology

59329 readers

4721 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

404

AI bots hallucinate software packages and devs download them (www.theregister.com)

submitted 7 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

110 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

in terms of communication utility, it's also a very accurate term.

when WE hallucinate, it's because our internal predictive models are flying off the rails filling in the blanks based on assumptions rather than referencing concrete sensory information and generating results that conflict with reality.

when AIs hallucinate, it's due to its predictive model generating results that do not align with reality because it instead flew off the rails presuming what was calculated to be likely to exist rather than referencing positively certain information.

it's the same song, but played on a different instrument.

[–] arken@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

when WE hallucinate, it's because our internal predictive models are flying off the rails filling in the blanks based on assumptions rather than referencing concrete sensory information and generating results that conflict with reality.

Is it really? You make it sound like this is a proven fact.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Is it really? You make it sound like this is a proven fact.

I believe that's where the scientific community is moving towards, based on watching this Kyle Hill video.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

this Kyke Hill video

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I know I'm responding to a bot, but... how does a PipedLinkBot get "Kyle Hill" wrong to "Kyke Hill"? More AI hallucinations?

[–] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Op has a pencil in the top right, looks like it was edited

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

True, I missed that

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

i mean, idk about the assumptions part of it, but if you asked a psych or a philosopher, im sure they would agree.

Or they would disagree and have about 3 pages worth of thoughts to immediately exclaim otherwise they would feel uneasy about their statement.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Better than one of those pesky unproven facts

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think a more accurate term would be confabulate based on your explanation.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

you know what, i like that! I like that a lot!