[dsign]

I had some fun yesterday when ChatGPT hallucinated a bibliographic reference to an article that didn't exist. But the journal existed, and it had plenty of articles that made ChatGPT's hallucination plausible. I think that at least this use case can be fixed with some pragmatic engineering[^1].

[^1]: Which may take a bit to happen, because our current crop of AI researchers have all taken "The bitter lesson"[^2] to heart.

[^2]: http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

[FPGAhacker]

Did chatgpt post the reference as a footnote (or parenthetical)?

At least for now,I was thinking it didn’t do that, and maybe the lack of references would be an indicator of unedited gpt output.

[dsign]

It did:

...

> However, according to a study published in the Journal of Dairy Science, the diacetyl content of butter can range from approximately 0.5 to 14 parts per million (ppm) (https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73775-3).

The doi I could not find, so I'm pretty sure is bogus.

I asked it to produce a full reference:

> Sure, the full reference for the study I mentioned is:

> Yvon, M., Chambellon, E., & Bolotin, A. (2003). Effect of pH on diacetyl and acetoin production by Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis biovar diacetylactis. Journal of dairy science, 86(12), 4068-4076.

I went to the index of the journal 86(12), and that article is not there.

[int_19h]

It's okay, GPT just gets confused about which of the quantum many-worlds it is currently in. Just ask it to write the article as needed. ~