[Karellen]

1) sounds like intent is present there?

2) "the camera cannot lie" - cameras have no intent?

I feel like I'm missing something from those definitions that you're trying to show me? I don't see how they support your implication that one can ignore intent when identifying a lie. (It would help if you cited the source you're using.)

[coldtea]

>2) "the camera cannot lie" - cameras have no intent?

The point was that the dictionary definition accepts the use of the term lie about things that can misrepresent something (even when they're mere things and have no intent).

The dictionary's use of the common saying "the camera cannot lie" wasn't to argue that cameras don't lie because they don't have intent, but to show an example of the word "lie" used for things.

I can see how someone can be confused by this when discussing intent, however, since they opted for a negative example. But we absolutely do use the word for inanimate things that don't have intent too.

[dendriti]

If I use ChatGPT to "hallucinate" a source, and post it here, am I lying?

[tankenmate]

either a) you knew it was false before posting, then yes you are lying. Or b) you knew there was a high possibility that ChatGPT could make things up, in which case you aren't lying per se, but engaging in reckless behaviour. If your job relies on you posting to HN, or you know and accept that others rely on what you post to HN then you are probably engaging in gross recklessness (like the lawyer in the article).

[Dylan16807]

Did you get it to hallucinate on purpose, or perform willful ignorance? Then yes. Otherwise probably not.