As anthropomorphic as calling hallucinations to inaccuracies of the model.
I feel anthropomorphism is part of the marketing strategy for LLMs
I feel anthropomorphism is part of the marketing strategy for LLMs
I've seen "bullshitting" suggested, but this of course still implies intent, which AIs do not have in any typical sense of the word.
I think we as a community have settled on hallucination as the best English word that approximately conveys the idea. I've seen folks on here making up words to describe it, as if that is any more useful to the victim here. The victim being the uninformed (w.r.t AI tech) layperson.
It’s a better alternative than “bullshitting”, because “confabulating” does not have that kind of connotation of intent.
In humans hallucination is about a loss of a relationship with an underlying physical world. A physical world whose model we have in our heads and interact with in intentional ways if we are not hallucinating.
That means using the word hallucinating implies that the thing could also not be hallucinating and have a grip on reality. And rhis was my criticism, a LLM spits out plausible phrases, if the graph wouldn't consider an output plausible it wouldn't return it. That means for the LLM there is no difference between plausible bogus and a factually correct statement, this is something humans interpret into the output from the outside.
Human do this too, of course. The LLMs are simply emulating this human behavior.
Wrong or inaccurate are alternatives.