When German journalist Martin Bernklautyped his name and location into Microsoft’s Copilot to see how his articles would be picked up by the chatbot, the answers horrified him. Copilot’s results asserted that Bernklau was an escapee from a psychiatric institution, a convicted child abuser, and a conman preying on widowers. For years, Bernklau had served as a courts reporter and the AI chatbot had falsely blamed him for the crimes whose trials he had covered.

The accusations against Bernklau weren’t true, of course, and are examples of generative AI’s “hallucinations.” These are inaccurate or nonsensical responses to a prompt provided by the user, and they’re alarmingly common. Anyone attempting to use AI should always proceed with great caution, because information from such systems needs validation and verification by humans before it can be trusted.

But why did Copilot hallucinate these terrible and false accusations?

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    What other networks?

    It currently recognizes when it is told it is wrong: it is told to apologize to it’s conversation partner and to provide a different response. It doesn’t need another network to tell it right from wrong. It needs access to the previous sessions where humans gave it that information.

    • vrighter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      here’s that same conversation with a human:

      “why is X?” “because y!” “you’re wrong” “then why the hell did you ask me for if you already know the answer?”

      What you’re describing will train the network to get the wrong answer and then apologize better. It won’t train it to get the right answer

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Have you tried doing this? I have, for *nearly a year, on the more ‘advanced’ pro versions. Yes, it will apologise and try again – and it gets progressively worse over time. There’s been a marked degradation as it progresses, and all the models are worse now at maintaining context and not hallucinating than they were several months ago.

      LLMs aren’t the kind of AI that can evaluate themselves and improve like you’re suggesting. Their logic just doesn’t work like that. A true AI will come from an entirely different type of model, not from LLMs.

      e: time. Wow, where did this year go?