this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
218 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

70028 readers
4021 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

Vibe litigation

[–] sfled@lemm.ee 10 points 7 hours ago

The AI ate my homework.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 36 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Can we normalize not calling them hallucinations? They’re not hallucinations. They are fabrications; lies. We should not be romanticizing a robot lying to us.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 42 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty engrained vocabulary at this point. Lies implies intent. I would have preferred "errors"

Also, for the record, this is the most dystopian headline I've come across to date.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I like fabrication going forward. Clearly made up, doesn't imply intent

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 6 points 5 hours ago

The word hallucination has zero implication of intent whatsoever. Last time I checked hallucination is an entirely involuntary experience, regardless of the context the word is used in.

They are called hallucination in computer science not “to romanticize” it. It is called that because the output is totally random from the perspective of the input. If there is no logical path from input to the output, it is similar to a human hallucinating. Human sees no actual weird visual stimuli that results in them hallucinating a dragon, therefore the input info from their eyes has no bearing on what they imagine is actually there.

This is different from “fabrication” in that the AI intentionally creating fake info based on your input request would not be a hallucination, because there would be a relationship between input and output.

While you say you prefer “fabrication”, the word fabrication actually implies some intent that is absent from what we are referring to as AI hallucinations

[–] franzcoz@feddit.cl -1 points 7 hours ago

Emm no... Why?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 45 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This should be cause for contempt. This isn't much worse, IMO, than a legal briefing mentioning, "as affirmed in the case of Pee-pee v.s Poo-poo." They're basically taking a shit on the process by not verifying their arguments.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Being a model citizen and a person of taste, you probably don't need this reminder, but some others do: Federal judges do not like it when lawyers electronically watermark every page of their legal PDFs with a gigantic image—purchased for $20 online—of a purple dragon wearing a suit and tie. Not even if your firm's name is "Dragon Lawyers."

Lmao

[–] Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago

Lmao one of the pages on their website lists a few events at 123 Legal Ave, Suite 100, City, State, 12345. I'm starting to get the feeling these people don't take their job very seriously.

The "divorce" link just leads to "divorce". Not "https://shittysite/divorce%E2%80%9C. Just," divorce".

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 58 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We really are just getting stupider and stupider, aren't we?

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 15 points 12 hours ago

Most are, yes..why learn anything when companies will speak for you?

[–] electricyarn@lemmy.world 25 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

How is this not considered fraud? Or at least hold them in contempt.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 22 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

AI's second innovation, besides letting you mass fire labor, is removing all blame for any decision as long as you can thinly point to AI being involved.

It outsources responsibility, and our legal/political/moral systems are not built to handle it.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

But it legally doesn't. That is why AI has not taken over in high liability fields. Morons are testing the waters and learning that AI mistakes make no difference in a court room, and if anything are grounds for further evidence of negligence.

The big bet now, I think, is whether those popup insurance policies regarding coverage for losses relates to AI usage end up profitable. If so, that is what will lead to truly dystopian stories like "AI piloted passenger jet crashes, United Airlines fined x million dollars but happily continues using AI pilots because insurance covered the fine and it's just a cost of doing business"

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

How are so many professional people so ignorant about AI?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 5 points 10 hours ago

Because they're professionals in unrelated fields. Understanding AI was never part of their job description, this strange and confusing technology snuck up on everyone and most people don't really know what's going on, they were never ready for this.