There is huge excitement about ChatGPT and other large generative language models that produce fluent and human-like texts in English and other human languages. But these models have one big drawback, which is that their texts can be factually incorrect (hallucination) and also leave out key information (omission).
In our chapter for The Oxford Handbook of Lying, we look at hallucinations, omissions, and other aspects of “lying” in computer-generated texts. We conclude that these problems are probably inevitable.
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
- 0 users online
- 35 users / day
- 254 users / week
- 646 users / month
- 1.28K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 1.67K Posts
- 28.2K Comments
- Modlog
If you’re looking for a factual response from chat GPT you’re using it wrong. It’s designed to produce text that looks correct. It’s not a replacement for Google or indeed proper research. For more on this watch the leagle eagle video on chat gpt case: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM
I’m not using ChatGPT at all.