Re:If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why woul...
by ggm on Sunday December 14, 2025 @01:18AM
(#46261169)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/scicurious-brain/ign...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why woul...
by lgas on Sunday December 14, 2025 @01:39AM
(#46261229)
I'm not 100% sure I'd call that a hallucination, but it's close enough and interesting enough that I'm happy to stand corrected.
Re:If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why woul...
by bitwize on Sunday December 14, 2025 @02:15AM
(#46261345)
When improper use of a statistical model generates bogus inferences in generative AI, we call the result a "hallucination"...
Re:If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why woul...
by baq on Sunday December 14, 2025 @05:23AM
(#46262082)
It should have been called confabulation, hallucination is not the correct analog, tech bros simply used the first word they thought of and it unfortunately stuck.
Re:If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why woul...
by K0balt on Sunday December 14, 2025 @07:28AM
(#46262570)
Undesirable output might be more accurate, since there is absolutely no difference in the process of creating a useful output vs a “hallucination” other than the utility of the resulting data.
I had a partially formed insight along these lines, that LLMs exist in this latent space of information that has so little external grounding. A sort of deeamspace. I wonder if embodying them in robots will anchor them to some kind of ground-truth source?