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

Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#21

Post by spl757 »

defrost wrote: post #19
spl757 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about software being allowed to make the decision to put bullets through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy.

Is this distinct from the hardware in a land mine making the decision to explode shrapnel through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy. Worth noting that both cases indirectly involve the humans that designed devices and the humans that made the placement and trigger condition decisions. Further: > AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using techno…

yes, yes it absfuckinglutely is. IMHO

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#23

Post by spl757 »

defrost wrote: post #19
spl757 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about software being allowed to make the decision to put bullets through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy.

Is this distinct from the hardware in a land mine making the decision to explode shrapnel through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy. Worth noting that both cases indirectly involve the humans that designed devices and the humans that made the placement and trigger condition decisions. Further: > AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using techno…

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not it's moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? My understanding is that it's being used that way, but I can't back that up and I'll take your word for it if that's not the case. But it is certainly a plausible scenario. Everyone invested in AI seems determined to put it in everything because they need consumers to want to pay for it, and right now they haven't figured out a way to earn back from consumers the over a trillion dollars that has been put into the AI bubble. I don't have much faith that the people with billions invested don't want return on their investment, and I don't think they care about the consequences necessary to get it back.

edit for clarity

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#24

Post by defrost »

spl757 wrote: post #23
defrost wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this distinct from the hardware in a land mine making the decision to explode shrapnel through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy. Worth noting that both cases indirectly involve the humans that designed devices and the humans that made the placement and trigger condition decisions. Further: > AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using techno…

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not it's moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? My understanding is that it's being used that way, but I can't back that up and I'll take your word for it if that's not the case. But it is certainly a plausible scenario. Everyone invested in AI seems determined to put it in everything because they need consumers to want to pay for it, and right now they hav…

> moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously?

First point, vision systems have been used in industry to look for misaligned labels, incorrectly folded papers (in high speed paper presses), wrong items on high speed conveyor belts etc. for thirty odd years now - they have issues that a very distinct from LLM 'AI' hallucinations.

That's nomenclature out the way.

Landmines are indiscriminate, they trigger on any weight or pressure over a threshold.

A vision based Felixer, by contrast, only triggers on cats (well, almost always only) and leaves bilbies and bettongs to walk on by.

That's an improvement over landmines.

The crux of your issue here might be the morality and ethics of establishing human exclusion zones within which all humans are highly likely to die.

These historically are created with rapid patterned artillery fire, butterfly mines, Napalm, indiscriminate criss crossing machine gun fire, etc.

Now there exists an option to use drones to kill all humans and leave the horses and cows alive.

Is it your concern that a bad vision threshold might kill a horse rather than a person? (Likely not)

Would you prefer an area to be napalm'd and agent orange'd back to dust?

War is hell.

* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/feral-cat-management-...

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#25

Post by spl757 »

defrost wrote: post #24
spl757 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not it's moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? My understanding is that it's being used that way, but I can't back that up and I'll take your word for it if that's not the case. But it is certainly a plausible scenario. Everyone invested in AI seems determined to put it in everything because they need consumers to want to pay for it, and right now they hav…

> moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? First point, vision systems have been used in industry to look for misaligned labels, incorrectly folded papers (in high speed paper presses), wrong items on high speed conveyor belts etc. for thirty odd years now - they have issues that a very distinct from LLM 'AI' hallucinations. That's nomenclature out the way. Landmines are indiscriminate, they trigger on…

I'd prefer a world without war, rather than one that is starting to make the movie Terminator 2: Judgement Day a reality.

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#26

Post by spl757 »

defrost wrote: post #24
spl757 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not it's moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? My understanding is that it's being used that way, but I can't back that up and I'll take your word for it if that's not the case. But it is certainly a plausible scenario. Everyone invested in AI seems determined to put it in everything because they need consumers to want to pay for it, and right now they hav…

> moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? First point, vision systems have been used in industry to look for misaligned labels, incorrectly folded papers (in high speed paper presses), wrong items on high speed conveyor belts etc. for thirty odd years now - they have issues that a very distinct from LLM 'AI' hallucinations. That's nomenclature out the way. Landmines are indiscriminate, they trigger on…

Also, why do people keep talking about landmines? I'm talking about software, you are talking about dumb mechanical things from WWII. This isn't a philosophical question about methods of warfare from the past, but the software that controls the dumb hardware.

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#27

Post by abalashov »

The problem hasn't been solved, and, by the very nature of what LLMs are, can't be. However, it has gotten a lot better, as models have got much larger and pretraining more sophisticated.

Part of the difficulty--not in solving, but in discussing--is in defining what a hallucination is. On the face of it, it seems straightforward: an obviously counterfactual claim or manifest error of reasoning. However, it's not always that simple. A lot of what people consider to be hallucinations are misattributions, specious diagnoses, strangely lopsided preoccupations, eccentric design choices, needlessly verbose or circuitous output or explanations, a kind of metaphysical conflation of the trivial with the significant, etc.

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#28

Post by emj »

You have to be specific. You only have vague comments about your own thoughts. We had this discussion with Tomahawks in the ninetees, it is not an easy one. This is like answering how long is a string.

IMHO This feels like a troll, OP have several comments about evil Ukrainian AI drones. I feel it is hard to have a naunced discussion if you only diss one part.

Your question is asking for easy technical opinions about a subject where you seem to have no technical knowledge.

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#29

Post by avadodin »

spl757 wrote: post #20
bruce511 wrote: post #16

There are two common ways to spot hallucinations. Talk to it about a topic you know well, or implement what it suggests and get an error or failure. For the first, we're mostly past the point of just "testing". So I don't see that too much anymore. Mostly I still see that though in bug reports generated by AI by someone else. There is usually some underlying bug being reported, but the AI explanation and "helpful sug…

AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using technology they have been given. That's real. Right now. That that is happening anywhere on the planet scares me. That's why I keep asking about AI hallucinating, and it's implications when the stakes are life and death.

The "AIs" being used by these drones have little to do with ChatGPT at the moment. And you should be more worried about "AIs" that do aim at the intended target, anyways.

Re: Has the hallucination problem in AI been solved?

#30

Post by defrost »

spl757 wrote: post #26
defrost wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? First point, vision systems have been used in industry to look for misaligned labels, incorrectly folded papers (in high speed paper presses), wrong items on high speed conveyor belts etc. for thirty odd years now - they have issues that a very distinct from LLM 'AI' hallucinations. That's nomenclature out the way. Landmines are indiscriminate, they trigger on…

Also, why do people keep talking about landmines? I'm talking about software, you are talking about dumb mechanical things from WWII. This isn't a philosophical question about methods of warfare from the past, but the software that controls the dumb hardware.

> why do people keep talking about landmines?

I, a person, singular, mention landmines as they are a hardware device that are designed to trigger action on a threshold.

Felixers are computer vision based devices that are designed to trigger action on a threshold.

These are actual real world objects that Bishop Berkeley can kick, not vague philosophical questions but actual engineered devices that kill and are in use today.

Post reply on HN