Technology

37737 readers

47 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

“Lying” in computer-generated texts: hallucinations and omissions (blog.oup.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Spudger@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is huge excitement about ChatGPT and other large generative language models that produce fluent and human-like texts in English and other human languages. But these models have one big drawback, which is that their texts can be factually incorrect (hallucination) and also leave out key information (omission).

In our chapter for The Oxford Handbook of Lying, we look at hallucinations, omissions, and other aspects of “lying” in computer-generated texts. We conclude that these problems are probably inevitable.

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

[–] furrowsofar 1 points 1 year ago

My issue is using humanizing language which adds a lot of baggage and implied assumptions which are miss leading. Bottom line is that these things just give crazy results at times through design and the data you put it and even at best they are rather dumb. Maybe useful but the user has to know their limitations and verify their results.