Thread

1. drtgh · 1789758284 · focus · HN ↗

   > relatively poorly understood technology

   Poorly understood? how convenient...

   LLMs are vectorial databases with losses that index statistically filled data, which uses a text interface to query such statistically filled data. The output is a string concatenation (statistically concatenated bit by bit).

   When the LLMs are queried (prompted), you can get random mixed data as output, ERRORS, due to undesired indexes getting closer at one point while the string was being concatenated for the output, what affects the rest of the indexed content that will be concatenated.

   It is intrinsic to this tech. The larger the context, the greater the probability of get mixed data. And if the provider lowers the precision of those indexes -in order to decrease hardware resources and energy consumption- such probability increases to the point where those errors are granted.

   Even knowing that the queries can return wrong/mixed data in the responses, errors, the companies developing this, decided to introduce a new product, that connects such LLMs outputs to the command console, latter connected to internet, raw 'eval' running commands from such outputs witch obviously can contain whatever mixed random. Then we started to hear "oh, it deleted my directory", etc, and it seems the next one will be "a missile killed my wife", because it is a text concatenation engine with errors.

   To name it "hallucination" is an euphemism... those are errors, and they are granted to happen at one moment. If they do not know this, then they ate too much marketing without doing their job, or it was a convenient contract for the pocket$ of someone.

   1. margalabargala · 1789758879 · focus · HN ↗

      I agree with most of your comment, but...

      > To name it "hallucination" is an euphemism... those are errors

      I find this and other "don't anthropomorphize the computer" statements incredibly unconvincing.

      People develop terms for things and language has always contained overloaded or "literally inaccurate" terms.

      An LLM can have "hallucinations" in the same way a modern computer program can have "bugs".

      1. antonvs · 1789760078 · focus · HN ↗

         The term “hallucination” is a projection of inappropriate expectations onto a program. We know that LLMs are not “truth machines,” but we really want them to be. So when they produce a result that happens not to match external reality - which, it should be noted, LLMs don’t generally have access to - we call it an hallucination.

         “Bugs” are completely different. With bugs, we have a clear specification and we have a program that’s supposed to meet that specification. If it doesn’t, we say the program has bugs, and if it’s important enough we can change the program to eliminate the bugs.

         You can try to apply similar logic to LLMs, but you’d be making a category error, and you’ll fail to get the results you want in general. It’s not the same thing at all.

         If anything, the concept of an LLM hallucination is a bug in human understanding of LLMs.

         1. jyounker · 1789760277 · focus · HN ↗

            The word "confabulation" is much more precise and appropriate than "hallucination". We should use it instead.
         2. orwin · 1789767567 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, but when a statistical model give you an erroneous result, you call the output an error, not a bug. I think error is more appropriate here. The error can be a sampling error, an inference error, or yes, a software error (or bug)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.