Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

dosaygo-studio.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#901

Post by alamortsubite »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #894
hbn wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hallucination" has always seemed like a misnomer to me anyway considering LLMs don't know anything. They just impressively get things right enough to be useful assuming you audit the output. If anything, I think all of their output should be called a hallucination.

We don't know if anything knows anything because we don't know what knowing is.

On the other hand, once you're operating under the model of not knowing if anything knows anything, there's really no point in posting about it here, is there?

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#902

Post by tangwwwei »

jotaen wrote: post #900
jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

To me, “imagine” would have been a more fitting term here. (“Generate”, while correct, sounds too technical, and “confabulate” reads a bit obscure.)

"imagine" gives too much credence of humanity to this action which will continue the cognitive mistake we make of anthropomorphzing llms

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#903

Post by DonHopkins »

Olreich wrote: post #845
bluejay2387 wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to second this. Asking the model to create a work of fiction and it complying isn't a pathology. Mozart wasn't "hallucinating" when he created "The Marriage of Figaro".

But many artists are hallucinating when they envisioned some of their pieces. Who's to say Mozart wasn't on a trip when he created The Marriage of Figaro.

Bill Atkinson was hallucinating when he envisioned HyperCard.

https://patternproject.substack.com/p/from-the-mac-to-the-my...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44530767

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#905

Post by DonHopkins »

nunodonato wrote: post #834
jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

wouldn't the right term be 'confabulation'?

Latin: Extraclaudiposteriorifabricátio

Pronunciation: ex-tra-clau-dee-pos-TE-ri-o-ri-fa-bri-KA-tee-o

Meaning: "The act of fabricating something by pulling it from one’s posterior."

  extra- = out of
  claudi- (from claudere, close/shut) repurposed for “the closed place”
  posterior- = the backside
  fabricatio = fabrication, invention
German: Poausdenkungsherausziehungsmachwerk

Pronunciation: POH-ows-den-kungs-heh-RAUS-tsee-oongs-MAHKH-verk

Meaning: "A contrived creation pulled out of the butt by thinking it up."

  Po = butt
  Ausdenkungs- = thinking-up
  Herausziehung = pulling-out
  Machwerk = contrived creation
Klingon: puchvo’vangDI’moHchu’ghach

Pronunciation: POOKH-vo vang-DEE-moakh-CHU-ghakh (roll the gh, hit the q hard, and use that throat ch like clearing your bat’leth sinuses)

Meaning: "The perfected act of boldly claiming something pulled out from the butt."

  puch = toilet (a real Klingon word)
  -vo’ = from
  vang = act, behave, assert (real root)
  -DI’ = when (adds timing spice)
  -moH = cause/make
  -chu’ = perfectly / clearly / expertly
  -ghach = turns a verb phrase into a noun (canonical nominalizer)

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#906

Post by lkbm »

dang wrote: post #418
Bjartr wrote: post #207

For comparison, here's the frontpage from ten years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2015-12-09

Pretty funny how the top story there references A.I.! Since /front is a ranked union of all the stories that were on the frontpage over 24 hours, here's an actual snapshot too: https://web.archive.org/web/20151209195229/https://news.ycom...

And then lower down we have TensorFlow 0.6.0 release.

I was considering using this feature the other day to try to get a sense of what AI discourse was like circa 2019. It all blends together after a while. I ended up doing a Twitter search for "GPT-2" ending 2019-12-31, but that's a little more specific than I want.

The HN past feature is an excellent way of seeing snapshots of history, and I wish more sites had things like this. I guess I should Archive.org a little more money.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#908

Post by anonymous_sorry »

hbn wrote: post #890
jll29 wrote: post #825

AI professor here. I know this page is a joke, but in the interest of accuracy, a terminological comment: we don't call it a "hallucination" if a model complies exactly with what a prompt asked for and produces a prediction, exactly as requested. Rater, "hallucinations" are spurious replacements of factual knowledge with fictional material caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator u…

"Hallucination" has always seemed like a misnomer to me anyway considering LLMs don't know anything. They just impressively get things right enough to be useful assuming you audit the output. If anything, I think all of their output should be called a hallucination.

Others have suggested "bullshit". A bullshitter does not care (and may not know) whether what they say is truth or fiction. A bullshitter's goal is just to be listened to and seem convincing.

Re: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

#910

Post by Aurornis »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #896
Aurornis wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never heard the caveat that it can't be attributable to misinformation in the pre-training corpus. If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed. Matters of access to the training corpus are a separate issue.

> If the LLM is accurately reflecting the training corpus, it wouldn’t be considered a hallucination. The LLM is operating as designed. That would mean that there is never any hallucination. The point of original comment was distinguishing between fact and fiction, which an LLM just cannot do. (It's an unsolved problem among humans, which spills into the training data)

> That would mean that there is never any hallucination.

No it wouldn’t. If the LLM produces an output that does not match the training data or claims things that are not in the training data due to pseudorandom statistical processes then that’s a hallucination. If it accurately represents the training data or context content, it’s not a hallucination.

Similarly, if you request that an LLM tells you something false and the information it provided is false, that’s not a hallucination.

> The point of original comment was distinguishing between fact and fiction,

In the context of LLMs, fact means something represented in the training set. Not factual in an absolute, philosophical sense.

If you put a lot of categorically false information into the training corpus and train an LLM on it, those pieces of information are “factual” in the context of the LLM output.

The key part of the parent comment:

> caused by the use of statistical process (the pseudo random number generator

Post reply on HN