Hallucination or Confabulation? Neuroanatomy as metaphor in Large Language Models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As Large Language Models (LLMs) and their capabilities become an increasingly prominent aspect of our workflows and our lives, it is important that we are thoughtful and deliberate with the words we use to refer to the inner workings and outputs of this technology.We think that conveying the complex functions (and malfunctions) of LLMs using metaphorical language that is precise and accurate can lead to a better understanding of these powerful tools among both the academic community and the public.If we are meticulous in our choice of metaphors, we open ourselves up to the possibility of achieving a better shared understanding of the complex concepts in this exciting new field.Here, we give the specific example of AI "hallucinations" and demonstrate how a change in metaphorical language can lead to new ways of understanding and may even foreshadow future directions in the development of artificial intelligence systems.In psychiatry, hallucinations are a relatively well-defined perceptual phenomenon referring to sensory experiences without associated external, or 'real-world' stimuli.Clinically, hallucinations are commonly associated with conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Parkinson's disease [1].Employing the term "hallucination" to characterize the inaccurate and non-factual outputs generated by LLMs implies acceptance of the notion that LLMs are engaged in perceiving, that is, becoming consciously aware of a sensory input.While this is a subject of some ongoing debate, there is currently no evidence that AI has gained conscious awareness [2].LLMs do not have sensory experiences, and thus cannot mistakenly perceive them as real.As such, we believe the term "hallucination" misrepresents the nature of the process occurring within LLMs which it has been used to describe.The model is not "seeing" something that is not there, but it is making things up.More accurate terminology is found in the psychiatric concept of confabulation, which refers to the generation of narrative details that, while incorrect, are not recognized as such.Unlike hallucinations, confabulations are not perceived experiences but instead mistaken reconstructions of information which are influenced by existing knowledge, experiences, expectations, and context.Confabulation can occur in various clinical conditions including dementia, Wernicke-Korsakoff's syndrome, schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) [3].Confabulation is frequently associated with a generalised lack of awareness of one's deficits often seen in right sided CVAs or TBIs, as well as in bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and the dementias [4].When answering questions, LLMs generate responses based on learned patterns in very large datasets [5].The output of LLMs can
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».