Post #3254162

2026-06-06 16:56 UTC

@grammargirl@zirk.us This is a good example of why that term is so dangerous. Thank you for posting it. That said, while I have zero hope of making that term go away, we also have the word "slop" as a counter. "Ugh. It had a hallucination..." "Yup. And the results are now slop." That said, I don't myself use "hallucination" in the "AI" context. I refer to the error rate, which last I checked, hovered around 40%.

Replies (4)

@AccordionBruce@mastodon.social 2026-06-06 17:01

@orionkidder@writing.exchange @grammargirl@zirk.us The explanation has to include that if you believe what the AI tells you then you are hallucinating

Open ##3254163
@grammargirl@zirk.us 2026-06-06 17:03

@orionkidder@writing.exchange Good point. Also, the error rate now highly depends on which model you're talking about, but I think that's the rate for those that are most widely used -- e.g., the free models.

Open ##3254174
@danielmunoz@maly.io 2026-06-06 23:11

@orionkidder@writing.exchange @grammargirl@zirk.us I’ve heard the Spanish science communicator Ignacio Crespo argue that “hallucination” is misleading in this context, because it imports a human mental-state metaphor into a statistical text-generation error. “Confabulation” may be closer: a plausible-sounding reconstruction that fills gaps. Still, it also comes from human cognition, so it can anthropomorphise the model too.

Open ##3254182
@CStamp@mastodon.social 2026-06-07 04:07

@orionkidder@writing.exchange @grammargirl@zirk.us I refuse to use it and anthropomorphize a computer failing. It’s like “pro life.” No, it’s “give birth or die trying.” We need to call things what they are.

Open ##3254185