this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
820 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59656 readers
2693 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
820
Google Search Is Now a Giant Hallucination (gizmodo.com)
submitted 6 months ago by RGB@group.lt to c/technology@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google rolled out AI overviews across the United States this month, exposing its flagship product to the hallucinations of large language models.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

TBH I hate the term "hallucination" in this context. It's just more BS anthropomorphizing. More marketing for "AI" (also BS). Can't we just call it like garbage or GIGO or something more accurate? This is nothing new. I know that scientific accuracy is anathema to AI marketing but just saying...

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

scientific accuracy is anathema to AI marketing

Even though I agree in this context “hallucination” is actually the scientific term. It might be poorly chosen but in LLM circles if you use the term hallucination, the vast majority of people, will understand precisely what you mean, namely not an error in programming, or a bad dataset, but rather that the language model worked well, generating sentences that are syntactically correct, that are roughly thematically coherent, and yet are factually incorrect.

So I obviously don't want to support marketing BS, in AI or elsewhere, but here sadly it matches the scientific naming.

PS: FWIW I believed I made a similar critic few months, or maybe even years, ago. IMHO what's more important is arguably questioning the value of LLMs themselves, but then it might not be as evident for many people who are benefiting from the current buzz.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not, actually. Hallucinations are things that effectively "come out of nowhere", information that was not in the training material or the provided context. In this case Google Overview is presenting information that is indeed in the provided context. These aren't hallucinations, the AI is doing what it's being told to do. The problem is that Google isn't doing a good job of providing it with the right information to summarize.

My suspicion is that since Google is using this AI for all search results it's had to cut back the resources it's providing to each individual call, which means it's only being given a small amount of context to work from. Bing Chat does a much better job, but it's drawing from many more search results and is given the opportunity to say a lot more about them.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 9 points 6 months ago

We don't choose. It's decided to be the term for this. Computer bugs aren't bugs. Etc etc. It's just what the scientists called it

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Can’t we just call it like garbage or GIGO or something more accurate?

Gibberish?

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It’s actually confabulation. Making up false memories as a result of brain damage.