[VanillaCafe]

> I don't know why the narrative became "don't call it hallucination".

Context is "don't call it hallicination" picked up meme energy since https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 on the thesis that "Calling their mistakes ‘hallucinations’ isn’t harmless: it lends itself to the confusion that the machines are in some way misperceiving but are nonetheless trying to convey something that they believe or have perceived."

Which is meta-bullshit because it doesn't matter. We want LLMs to behave more factually, whatever the non-factuality is called. And calling that non-factuality something else isn't going to really change how we approach making them behave more factually.

[intended]

How are LLMs not behaving factually? They already predict the next most likely term.

If they could predict facts, then these would be gods, not machines. It would be saying that in all the written content we have, there exists a pattern that allows us to predict all answers to questions we may have.

[ijk]

The problem is that some people are running around and saying they are gods. Which I wouldn't care about, but an alarming number of people do believe that they can predict facts.

[intended]

Our system can effectively predict facts.

It logics its way to it.

By predicting the next word in a sequence of words.

Sure? It kinda sounds plausible? But man, if it’s that straight forward, what have we been doing as a species for so many years ?