Subj : Re: ChatGPT Writing
To   : Nightfox
From : jimmylogan
Date : Fri Dec 26 2025 05:08 pm

-=> Nightfox wrote to jimmylogan <=-

 Ni>   Re: Re: ChatGPT Writing
 Ni>   By: jimmylogan to Nightfox on Wed Dec 03 2025 08:58 pm

 ji>> But again, is it 'making something up' if it is just mistaken?

 Ni>> In the case of AI, yes.

 ji> Gonna disagree with you there... If wikipedia has some info that is wrong,
 ji> and I quote it, I'm not making it up. If 'it' pulls from the same source,
 ji> it's not making it up either.

 Ni> For AI, "hallucination" is the term used for AI providing false
 Ni> information and sometimes making things up - as in the link I provided
 Ni> earlier about this.  It's not really up for debate. :)

:-) Okay - then I'm saying that in MY opinion, it's a bad word to
use. Hallucination in a human is when you THINK you see or hear
something that isn't there. Using the same word for an AI giving
false information is misleading.

So I concede it's the word that is used, but I don't like the use
of it. :-) 

 Ni>> I've heard of people who
 Ni>> are looking for work who are using AI tools to help update their resume,
 Ni>> as well as tailor their resume to specific jobs.  I've heard of cases
 Ni>> where the AI tools will say the person has certain skills when they
 Ni>> don't..  So you really need to be careful to review the output of AI
 Ni>> tools so you can correct things.  Sometimes people might share
 Ni>> AI-generated content without being careful to check and correct things.

 ji> I'd like to see some data on that... Anecdotal 'evidence' is not always
 ji> scientific proof. :-)

 Ni> That seems like a strange thing to say..  I've heard about that from
 Ni> job seekers using AI tools, so of course it's anecdotal.  I don't know
 Ni> what scientific proof you need to see that AI produces incorrect
 Ni> resumes for job seekers; we know that from job seekers who've said so.
 Ni> And you've said yourself that you've seen AI tools produce incorrect
 Ni> output.

Sorry - didn't mean to demand anything. I just meant the fact that someone
says it gave false info doesn't mean it will ALWAYS give false info. The
burdon is still on the user to verify output.

I was using it to help me fill out a spreadsheet and had to go back
and correct some entries. Had I turned it in 'as is' it would have
had MY signature on it, and I would have been responsible.

 Ni> The job search thing isn't really scientific..  I'm currently looking
 Ni> for work, and I go to a weekly job search networking group meeting, and
 Ni> AI tools have come up there recently. Specifically, recently there was
 Ni> someone there talking about his use of AI tools to help customize his
 Ni> resume for different jobs & such, and he talked about needing to check
 Ni> the results of what AI produces, because sometimes AI tools will put
 Ni> skills & things on your resume that you don't have, so you have to make
 Ni> edits.

By 'scientific data,' I guess I meant I'd like to see the output AND the
input. I've learned that part of getting the right info is to ask the
right question, or ask it in the right way. :-) 

 ji> If that's the definition, then okay - a 'mistake' is technically a
 ji> hallucination. Again, that won't prevent me from using it as the tool it

 Ni> It's not a "technically" thing.  "Hallucination" is simply the term
 Ni> used for AI producing false output.




.... Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people are exposed to!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

.