[maroonblazer]

> do you think humans fake them the way chatGPT hallucinates them?

They don't need to 'fake' them; they can just be inadvertently wrong.

I have good, human, friends who tell me erroneous things all the time. I don't take them at face value, I check them. I do this for pretty much nearly every piece of information I get where it's going to inform a decision or point-of-view I'm going to take. Why should we be any less vigilant with a technology like ChatGPT?

[zvmaz]

What I implied is that we should be more vigilant with chatGPT. I don't think it is common for an article to completely invent a reference that does not exist, but it is common in chatGPT.

[creata]

Yeah, it's like how I'd prefer JPEG artifacts to an upscaler that completely fabricates the details.

[zvmaz]

How did I not notice this analogy?! It is in fact true that a JPEG artifact upscaled with fabricated details is the same thing as a totally forged reference of a paper describing when to diagnose appendicitis in children. Thank you.

[creata]

1. You know images can be used as evidence in court, right?

2. You know people can just follow up on references in papers, right?

3. You know things don't have to be exactly the same in severity to be comparable anyway, right?

4. I was going to delete my comment because it didn't say anything useful, but by then two hours had passed, so HN didn't let me.

Thanks for being a dick, pal.

[zvmaz]

> 1. You know images can be used as evidence in court, right?

Good point, I haven't thought about that. I thought your comment was sarcastic, it isn't apparently. Mea culpa.