If you replace this guy with my name I'd be upset. In my non-software networks the hallucination part isn't common knowledge. It's just a cool Google replacement.
If you replace this guy with my name I'd be upset. In my non-software networks the hallucination part isn't common knowledge. It's just a cool Google replacement.
I think that's one of the main issues around these new LLM's, the fact that most users will take what the bot tells them as gospel. OpenAI really should be more upfront about that. Because what happens when regulations and policies start getting put forth without the understanding of LLM hallucination, we could very well end up in a situation where regulators want something that is not technically feasible.
I mean they are quite upfront. When you load the page it displays the following disclaimers with quite large font:
"Limitations
May occasionally generate incorrect information
May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content
Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021"
2 out of the 3 disclaimers are about the fact that the software lies.
And then in the bottom of the page, right below the input box they say: "Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts"
Sure they could make them even larger and reword it to "This software will lie to you", and add small animated exclamation marks around the message. But it is not like they hide the fact.
A better way, like the sibling comment says, is to force people to type a sentence so they consciously acknowledge it. It's similar to college exams which ask you to specifically write out something like "I have not cheated on this assignment or test."
I've seen that sort of thing used to enforce people to read the rules on discord servers, this is higher stakes IMO.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/technology/ai-chatbots-di...