so is calling it fabrication. something incapable of knowing what is true cannot lie.
also, gpts and image generators are fundamentally different technologies sharing very little code beyond the basic matrix manipulation stuff, so the definition of truth needs to be very different.
that’s literally how it works though, the software is trained to remove noise from images and then you feed it pure noise and tell it there’s an image behind it. If that’s not hallucination idk what would be.
If that’s the case, then we anthropomorphize technology all the time. Like, constantly. How many times has your phone died when its not even alive? How does a phone drop a connection without hands? We feed a computer input and it regurgitates or spits out output, all without a mouth. The examples are endless but hard to immediately pick out, because the usage has changed to be completely commonplace. Even bytes were originally conceived as a play on words with ‘bite sized’ to refer to a small collection of bits. I don’t necccessarily defend these ‘AI’ tools, but policing the language people use ain’t it. Changing the word hallucinate to refer to a part of technology is exactly how language has functioned since always
I think fabrication is a better term than hallucination because of the double entendre of it being industrially fabricated and also being a lie.
that’s more of a comment on the usage than on the technology itself.
remember that google deepdream thing that would hallucinate dogs everywhere? it’s the same tech.
*shrugs
I think calling it a hallucination is anthropomorphizing the technology.
so is calling it fabrication. something incapable of knowing what is true cannot lie.
also, gpts and image generators are fundamentally different technologies sharing very little code beyond the basic matrix manipulation stuff, so the definition of truth needs to be very different.
that’s literally how it works though, the software is trained to remove noise from images and then you feed it pure noise and tell it there’s an image behind it. If that’s not hallucination idk what would be.
If that’s the case, then we anthropomorphize technology all the time. Like, constantly. How many times has your phone died when its not even alive? How does a phone drop a connection without hands? We feed a computer input and it regurgitates or spits out output, all without a mouth. The examples are endless but hard to immediately pick out, because the usage has changed to be completely commonplace. Even bytes were originally conceived as a play on words with ‘bite sized’ to refer to a small collection of bits. I don’t necccessarily defend these ‘AI’ tools, but policing the language people use ain’t it. Changing the word hallucinate to refer to a part of technology is exactly how language has functioned since always
that removes the reference to how it actually functions though, at that point you might as well just stop being coy and call it “AI dogshit”