I feel like the word “glitch” is also too humanizing. There wasn’t a programming error, the LLM picked what was statistically likely to come next. It’s working as it’s suppose to. “Glitch” implies some error.
I disagree that glitch is humanizing but that’s just how I interpret the word. “Glitch” is very technical, digital sounding to me. If we look at the results instead of the process and see that the output was “bad”, different from user expectations, etc., then I think glitch is appropriate. Something happened along the line from input to output that made a disconnect between what was expected to happened and whay really happened.
Regardless, on OP’s part, AI “hallucinations” are definitely nothing like real conscious hallucinations. It’s a disservice to real intelligence to suggest otherwise.
I feel like the word “glitch” is also too humanizing. There wasn’t a programming error, the LLM picked what was statistically likely to come next. It’s working as it’s suppose to. “Glitch” implies some error.
I disagree that glitch is humanizing but that’s just how I interpret the word. “Glitch” is very technical, digital sounding to me. If we look at the results instead of the process and see that the output was “bad”, different from user expectations, etc., then I think glitch is appropriate. Something happened along the line from input to output that made a disconnect between what was expected to happened and whay really happened.
Regardless, on OP’s part, AI “hallucinations” are definitely nothing like real conscious hallucinations. It’s a disservice to real intelligence to suggest otherwise.