• Syntha@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 年前

    AI is not prone to hallucinations, LLMs are. I doubt Amazon is building a chatbot to optimise packaging.

    • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      What do you consider to be an AI?
      And do you consider any of the existing systems to be the one?

      • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        When I use “AI” I’m using computer science terminology. Artificial intelligence is a subfield of CS, in that sense, any model that comes of that field is, by definition, AI.

        • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 年前

          Then it’s strange that you are separating AI and LLM, because in CS LLM is a type of artificial intelligence.

          • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            Some AI, namely, LLMs, can hallucinate, but not AI in general. I just had a bit of fun in how I worded it, I guess I should’ve expected someone to become annoyingly nitpicky about it.

              • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 年前

                I don’t think I was being wrong, technically, I do think you can write that way if you want to be a bit facetious, but I’m not a native speaker so, maybe not.

    • polygon6121@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 年前

      AI in general is definitely prone to hallucinations. It is more commonly seen in LLMs because it is more widely used by the public. It is definitely a problem with all AI

        • polygon6121@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 年前

          Text to video, automated driving, object detection, language translations. I might be misusing the term, you could argue that the word is describing what LLMs commonly does and that is where the term is derived from. You can also argue that AI is sometimes correct and the human have issues identifying the correct answer. But In my mind it is much the same just different applications. A car completely missing a firetruck approaching or a LLM just spewing out wrong statements is the same to me.

          • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            Yeah, well it’s not the same. Models are wrong all the time, why use a different term at all when it’s just “being wrong”?

            • polygon6121@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 年前

              The model makes decisions thinking it is right, but for whatever reason can’t see a firetruck or stopsign or misidentifies the object… you know almost like how a human hallucinating would perceive something from external sensory that is not there.

              I don’t mind giving it another term, but “being wrong” is misleading. But you are correct in the sense that it depends on every given case…

              • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 年前

                No, the model isn’t “thinking”, no model in use today has anything resembling an internal cognitive process. It is making a prediction. A covid test is predicting whether you have the Covid-19 virus inside you or not. If its prediction contradicts your biological state, it is wrong. If an object recognition algorithm does not predict there being a firetruck, how is that not being wrong in the same way?