[glenstein]

>In May 2025, the potential and prevalence of slopsquatting was detailed in the academic paper "We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs".[1][11] Some of the paper's main findings are that 19.7% of the LLM recommended packages did not exist

At the risk of perhaps misunderstanding or committing a category error, I wonder if there's such a thing as a category of "correct" hallucinating, distinct from things that are, in some sense, "known" via training (e.g. I read about prompting of one model showing it was able to accurately recreate most of the text of Harry Potter, so clearly it's "in there" somewhere).

An interesting upshot of that could be that models "grow" their own knowledge in an evolutionary way via hallucinations that are retained rather than pruned as part of routine filtering and training.

Though I'm sure some might suggest "hallucinating correctly" is just one of the same with ordinary b function. I wouldn't agree with that but I could at least see the argument.