[kasrkin623]

But how do you make sure that it provides consistent hallucinations?

Between GPT being consistently patched and such output being prone to statistical error I'm not sure if this vector of attack is efficient in the first place

[johnisgood]

I really hate the term "hallucinations". By which definition of hallucination is it a hallucination, really?

[SirMaster]

Well, often when I ask ChatGPT how to code something, it uses some external package that turns out doesn't exist. I don't know what else you would call that. Hallucination seems appropriate enough to me.

[johnisgood]

Okay, but if you ask me the same thing and I use a library or tell you the name of a library that does not exist (although the name comes close), would you say I am hallucinating? If not, then how could we apply this to AI if we cannot even apply the term used for humans to me?

[SirMaster]

OK, personally If a friend recommended me a library that didn't exist I would reply back to him "you made that up".

So, ChatGPT is "making stuff up".

To me hallucinating is a really similar term for "making something up". So the term works perfectly well for me.

I mean the definition on Google at least is: "an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present."

Isn't that what's happening? ChatGPT is experiencing (writing code using) the perception of something (the library) that is not present.