I guess that's fewer syllables than "hallucination."
I'm not sure how I feel about the term "hallucination" as it's applied to AI. Since you seem strongly opposed to it, let me ask you this long-winded half-question:
People understand computer things by creating analogies to the physical world - just look at the "Desktop" motif. "Folders" and "Files" too, for that matter. It seems to me that anthropomorphization would fit under that umbrella, though you may disagree. How do you feel about computer anthropomorphization in general? Is there something about "hallucination" that's particularly offensive?
Well, both the true and false outputs are equally random bullshit from a machine. "Hallucination" is just the word that caught on to describe random bullshit outputs that are false.
Even "bullshit" implies something like a mind, with intent to deceive. It should be more like noise, aberrations, incorrectly extrapolated filler material.
Bullshit is not deception. There is no intent to convince. Bullshit is even less than that.
Bullshit is just blowing hot hair to create a buffer between reality and it's consequences.
I'm not sure how I feel about the term "hallucination" as it's applied to AI. Since you seem strongly opposed to it, let me ask you this long-winded half-question:
People understand computer things by creating analogies to the physical world - just look at the "Desktop" motif. "Folders" and "Files" too, for that matter. It seems to me that anthropomorphization would fit under that umbrella, though you may disagree. How do you feel about computer anthropomorphization in general? Is there something about "hallucination" that's particularly offensive?