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

Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#51

Post by d4ng »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #34
d4ng wrote: post #6

Why are LLM mistakes said to be hallucinations and not simply mistakes?

A hallucination is a specific kind of mistake. There are also other kinds of mistakes LLMs can make; for example, they can draw incorrect conclusions from accurate information, or they can fail to find information that they "should" know.

Is claiming that the year when the orange man first came into office a mistake, or a hallucination? Does the answer change based on whether it came from a human or an LLM?

How about citing legal cases that don't exist? I would say this is maybe closer to hallucination if an LLM is doing it. Maybe less so if a human is and is not experience some mental instability. What creates that distinction?

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#52

Post by axus »

kayo_20211030 wrote: post #12

Could LLM's libel an individual? What's the duty of care for LLM's? Who would that person sue, should it come to that?

I asked an LLM 'Are false statements on a physical pamphlet posted in public considered libel?' with this response :

To successfully sue for libel, the defamed party generally must prove five key elements:

* Publication: The pamphlet was seen or read by a third party other than the person making the claims.

* Identification: The false statements clearly identify or point to a specific person or organization.

* Falsity: The claims presented as factual are objectively untrue. (Truth is an absolute defense to defamation).

* Defamatory Meaning: The statements are severe enough to damage the subject's reputation, expose them to public ridicule, or cause financial loss.

* Fault: The person distributing the flyer acted with intent or negligence. Public figures must prove "actual malice," while private citizens generally only need to prove negligence.

In my analogy, the webpage is a pamphlet/flyer, the LLM is the author (ghostwriter?), and the person at fault is the website owner.

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#53

Post by fragmede »

kayo_20211030 wrote: post #12

Could LLM's libel an individual? What's the duty of care for LLM's? Who would that person sue, should it come to that?

The company operating that LLM. Jonathan Turley, a reporter for the Washington Post, had a completed made up sexual harassment situation from ChatGPT. Fred Riehl and Mark Walters also had situation that Walters actually took to court and sued OpenAI for. The hilarious part of it is that I used ChatGPT to get their names!

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#54

Post by fragmede »

mapt wrote: post #21
kayo_20211030 wrote: post #12

Could LLM's libel an individual? What's the duty of care for LLM's? Who would that person sue, should it come to that?

When we ask "Can guns kill people? What are the rules of engagement that a gun follows? Who would the person shot by a gun sue, should it come to that?" we aren't so confused. The last human finger that pressed the button, and anyone employing them to press the button. The real question is how much intent transfers. If you point a gun at a person and the trigger goes off without you pulling it, how liable are you? If…

Skynet and the Matrix happens not because the AI was intentional with trying to take over, but because someone else was irresponsible and it got prompt injected. By accident.

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#55

Post by slfnflctd »

simonw wrote: post #25

Bruce Schneier write a good piece about this the other day: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/06/ai-and-liabil... He argues that we just can't continue to let businesses getting away with blaming AI for mistakes they publish, because: > To allow businesses to hide behind the excuse of faulty AI in those same circumstances would be a massive handout to companies, and would introduce disastrous incentives for…

Not only this, but another perverse incentive is hereby introduced: Where published statements are carefully crafted to seem like LLM generated hallucinations, but are written in a way which opens various kinds of plausibly 'accidental' temporary loopholes for certain categories of actions.

There are historical precedents for similar things. I hope some effective means of curtailing such behavior can be devised.

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

d4ng wrote: post #51
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hallucination is a specific kind of mistake. There are also other kinds of mistakes LLMs can make; for example, they can draw incorrect conclusions from accurate information, or they can fail to find information that they "should" know.

Is claiming that the year when the orange man first came into office a mistake, or a hallucination? Does the answer change based on whether it came from a human or an LLM? How about citing legal cases that don't exist? I would say this is maybe closer to hallucination if an LLM is doing it. Maybe less so if a human is and is not experience some mental instability. What creates that distinction?

I read a paper once (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10619792/pdf/pdig.0...) arguing that "confabulation" would be a more accurate term because it better matches the similar failure mode in humans, and perhaps that's true. It's just not the term that's won out. That may change, or psychologists may have to adopt a new term for what we currently call human hallucinations, the same way they had to develop a new term for what we used to call imbecility.

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#58

Post by 0x_rs »

laszlojamf wrote: post #2

I mean... I get it. It's annoying. But the outrage is getting old. LLMs hallucinate. It's an unfixable problem. We're going to have to get used to it. In all fairness, fake reviews and just people lying on the internet has always been a thing. The fact that gemini once in a while gets something wrong is just not very upsetting anymore IMO.

>LLMs hallucinate. It's an unfixable problem.

It's not, and the problem is Google shoving those summaries in everyone's face while using the cheapest, lowest model for it. If they cannot scale one that would produce more accurate results, they should not be doing it at all. The product is not ready, and it's a terrible look for them, not that anyone seriously believes they can produce any kind of decent LLM model at this time of course.

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#59

Post by aaron695 »

simonw wrote: post #25

Bruce Schneier write a good piece about this the other day: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/06/ai-and-liabil... He argues that we just can't continue to let businesses getting away with blaming AI for mistakes they publish, because: > To allow businesses to hide behind the excuse of faulty AI in those same circumstances would be a massive handout to companies, and would introduce disastrous incentives for…

[dead]

Re: Google hallucinated that I am sponsored by Ground News

#60

Post by speak_plainly »

It's weird that a company can hype investors with bombastic AI announcements on one end to get some boost in value and then on the other end divvy out those results like they're in the Great Depression. Gemini and AI Overviews feel like they're running on war-time rations half the time. Hey investors, start to get worried because this may not end well if all consumers are lied to constantly and pissed off. I say this as someone who just bought a Google Home Speaker.
Post reply on HN