Here's an argument that both 'confabulation' and 'hallucination' imply that something unusual happens and causes an error. But LLMs work exactly as designed, whether their output happens to be factually correct or not. Apparently, the technical term is 'bullshit'.

link.springer.com/article/10.1...

🙏 Many thanks to all the co-authors and respondents!

My favorite finding: even professionals who care about intelligence definitions enough to volunteer for a survey, find it hard to specify how they understand it - even as a multi-choice selection of pre-defined criteria.
/8

In light of the debate on 'AI' conferences, it is interesting that the respondents who identified their primary field as 'AI' were among the most skeptical about the current LLMs. This choice of the field name does not necessarily align with the research agenda of 'intelligent technology'.
/7

Finally, we asked the respondents about their overall research agenda. Most of them see their goal as adding to scientific knowledge, rather than building 'intelligent' tech. But those who do have the latter goal are also more likely to consider the current LLMs as intelligent.
/6

We also asked the respondents to categorize different entities as intelligent or not (see sec. 4.3 for rationale for this binarization). The number of respondents who made that choice for current LLMs (with ChatGPT as an example) is between those who made the same choice for amoebas and ants. /5

Here's how many respondents believe that the current and future LLM-based systems can be considered 'intelligent'. We found that students are overall less skeptical than the senior researchers. /4

Here's how many researchers considered various criteria of 'intelligence' important, but lacking in the current LLMs. Interestingly, embodiment isn't considered that important. /3

Here's who our respondents were by career stage, and which field they identified with as their primary research field: /2

Co-organized by Aalborg University, the IT University of Copenhagen, and the University of Copenhagen.

Team: @bjerva.bsky.social @delliott.bsky.social @annarogers.bsky.social and our amazing students incl. @arzuburcuguven.bsky.social @motzwanted.bsky.social /2

That'd be great to check when we have the bandwidth. But one more way to think about this is the scaling of effort to detect who doesn't help enough, going through their rationales, begging them to do more, checking what happens, etc etc - in parallel to all other jobs. This has to be sustainable.

And then they were systematically replaced. Russians and Ukrainians were incentivized to move to Crimea, creating the current Russian-speaking majority that considers Crimea 'historically theirs'.

It was/is discussed by various groups, but it is really complex, and different places have different co-authorship cultures, and there are many other fires going on. For now, this option should at least enable big groups to better cover their share of reviewing.