It seems much more likely that they are doing some other behaviour that only sometimes resembles thinking, in the same way that when you press the middle autocomplete button on your phone keyboard it only sometimes resembles conversation.
It seems much more likely that they are doing some other behaviour that only sometimes resembles thinking, in the same way that when you press the middle autocomplete button on your phone keyboard it only sometimes resembles conversation.
I guess you'll find that if you limit the definition of thinking that much most humans are not capable of thinking either.
The flip side of this is that fundamentally, I don't see a reason why machines could not get the same filtering capabilities over time by adjusting their architecture.
I find this an utterly bizarre claim given how prone humans are to make things up and firmly insist they did not.
I'm obviously not claiming that "hallucination" is an appropriate term ("delusion" or "confabulation" are probably more apt), but there is something here that is clearly not just a bug, but rather a result of thinking being applied properly but to ungrounded premises. To my eyes, reading an AIs "hallucination" is not unlike reading the writings of a human on drugs, or with a mental condition like schizophrenia, or just of an analytic philosopher taking their made up axioms all the way to an alternate universe.
To be clear, I'm not arguing you've made this claim in bad faith at all.
However, going back and examining my own writing, I have more than once found claims that I'm sure I believed at the time of making them, but that I in retrospect realise I had no actual backing for, and which were for that reason effectively pure fabrication.
An enduring memory of my school days was convincing the teacher that she was wrong about a basic fact of geography. I was convinced. I had also totally made up what I told her, and provided elaborate arguments in favour of my position.
To me this is innate human behaviour that I see on a regular basis. People accidentally invent entire "facts" all the time.
Did you just make this up?
Yes! That is how they work.
Jokes aside, we do produce plausibile sounding stuff all the time well beyond the limit of what we actually know or can prove. I think there is a continuum between formulating statements about things we don't know for sure and we can't prove, guessing details here and there to fill gaps in our memory, misremembering things that we thought we knew, and making up entire facts that sound plausible but are completely invented. Yes, llms seem to have trouble introspecting what they actually know; but it sounds more like a missing skill rather than a fundamental difference in the way they reason.