confabulation

2024:-the-year-ai-drove-everyone-crazy

2024: The year AI drove everyone crazy


What do eating rocks, rat genitals, and Willy Wonka have in common? AI, of course.

It’s been a wild year in tech thanks to the intersection between humans and artificial intelligence. 2024 brought a parade of AI oddities, mishaps, and wacky moments that inspired odd behavior from both machines and man. From AI-generated rat genitals to search engines telling people to eat rocks, this year proved that AI has been having a weird impact on the world.

Why the weirdness? If we had to guess, it may be due to the novelty of it all. Generative AI and applications built upon Transformer-based AI models are still so new that people are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. People have been struggling to grasp both the implications and potential applications of the new technology. Riding along with the hype, different types of AI that may end up being ill-advised, such as automated military targeting systems, have also been introduced.

It’s worth mentioning that aside from crazy news, we saw fewer weird AI advances in 2024 as well. For example, Claude 3.5 Sonnet launched in June held off the competition as a top model for most of the year, while OpenAI’s o1 used runtime compute to expand GPT-4o’s capabilities with simulated reasoning. Advanced Voice Mode and NotebookLM also emerged as novel applications of AI tech, and the year saw the rise of more capable music synthesis models and also better AI video generators, including several from China.

But for now, let’s get down to the weirdness.

ChatGPT goes insane

Illustration of a broken toy robot.

Early in the year, things got off to an exciting start when OpenAI’s ChatGPT experienced a significant technical malfunction that caused the AI model to generate increasingly incoherent responses, prompting users on Reddit to describe the system as “having a stroke” or “going insane.” During the glitch, ChatGPT’s responses would begin normally but then deteriorate into nonsensical text, sometimes mimicking Shakespearean language.

OpenAI later revealed that a bug in how the model processed language caused it to select the wrong words during text generation, leading to nonsense outputs (basically the text version of what we at Ars now call “jabberwockies“). The company fixed the issue within 24 hours, but the incident led to frustrations about the black box nature of commercial AI systems and users’ tendency to anthropomorphize AI behavior when it malfunctions.

The great Wonka incident

A photo of the Willy's Chocolate Experience, which did not match AI-generated promises.

A photo of “Willy’s Chocolate Experience” (inset), which did not match AI-generated promises, shown in the background. Credit: Stuart Sinclair

The collision between AI-generated imagery and consumer expectations fueled human frustrations in February when Scottish families discovered that “Willy’s Chocolate Experience,” an unlicensed Wonka-ripoff event promoted using AI-generated wonderland images, turned out to be little more than a sparse warehouse with a few modest decorations.

Parents who paid £35 per ticket encountered a situation so dire they called the police, with children reportedly crying at the sight of a person in what attendees described as a “terrifying outfit.” The event, created by House of Illuminati in Glasgow, promised fantastical spaces like an “Enchanted Garden” and “Twilight Tunnel” but delivered an underwhelming experience that forced organizers to shut down mid-way through its first day and issue refunds.

While the show was a bust, it brought us an iconic new meme for job disillusionment in the form of a photo: the green-haired Willy’s Chocolate Experience employee who looked like she’d rather be anywhere else on earth at that moment.

Mutant rat genitals expose peer review flaws

An actual laboratory rat, who is intrigued. Credit: Getty | Photothek

In February, Ars Technica senior health reporter Beth Mole covered a peer-reviewed paper published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology that created an uproar in the scientific community when researchers discovered it contained nonsensical AI-generated images, including an anatomically incorrect rat with oversized genitals. The paper, authored by scientists at Xi’an Honghui Hospital in China, openly acknowledged using Midjourney to create figures that contained gibberish text labels like “Stemm cells” and “iollotte sserotgomar.”

The publisher, Frontiers, posted an expression of concern about the article titled “Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway” and launched an investigation into how the obviously flawed imagery passed through peer review. Scientists across social media platforms expressed dismay at the incident, which mirrored concerns about AI-generated content infiltrating academic publishing.

Chatbot makes erroneous refund promises for Air Canada

If, say, ChatGPT gives you the wrong name for one of the seven dwarves, it’s not such a big deal. But in February, Ars senior policy reporter Ashley Belanger covered a case of costly AI confabulation in the wild. In the course of online text conversations, Air Canada’s customer service chatbot told customers inaccurate refund policy information. The airline faced legal consequences later when a tribunal ruled the airline must honor commitments made by the automated system. Tribunal adjudicator Christopher Rivers determined that Air Canada bore responsibility for all information on its website, regardless of whether it came from a static page or AI interface.

The case set a precedent for how companies deploying AI customer service tools could face legal obligations for automated systems’ responses, particularly when they fail to warn users about potential inaccuracies. Ironically, the airline had reportedly spent more on the initial AI implementation than it would have cost to maintain human workers for simple queries, according to Air Canada executive Steve Crocker.

Will Smith lampoons his digital double

The real Will Smith eating spaghetti, parodying an AI-generated video from 2023.

The real Will Smith eating spaghetti, parodying an AI-generated video from 2023. Credit: Will Smith / Getty Images / Benj Edwards

In March 2023, a terrible AI-generated video of Will Smith’s AI doppelganger eating spaghetti began making the rounds online. The AI-generated version of the actor gobbled down the noodles in an unnatural and disturbing way. Almost a year later, in February 2024, Will Smith himself posted a parody response video to the viral jabberwocky on Instagram, featuring AI-like deliberately exaggerated pasta consumption, complete with hair-nibbling and finger-slurping antics.

Given the rapid evolution of AI video technology, particularly since OpenAI had just unveiled its Sora video model four days earlier, Smith’s post sparked discussion in his Instagram comments where some viewers initially struggled to distinguish between the genuine footage and AI generation. It was an early sign of “deep doubt” in action as the tech increasingly blurs the line between synthetic and authentic video content.

Robot dogs learn to hunt people with AI-guided rifles

A still image of a robotic quadruped armed with a remote weapons system, captured from a video provided by Onyx Industries.

A still image of a robotic quadruped armed with a remote weapons system, captured from a video provided by Onyx Industries. Credit: Onyx Industries

At some point in recent history—somewhere around 2022—someone took a look at robotic quadrupeds and thought it would be a great idea to attach guns to them. A few years later, the US Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) began evaluating armed robotic quadrupeds developed by Ghost Robotics. The robot “dogs” integrated Onyx Industries’ SENTRY remote weapon systems, which featured AI-enabled targeting that could detect and track people, drones, and vehicles, though the systems require human operators to authorize any weapons discharge.

The military’s interest in armed robotic dogs followed a broader trend of weaponized quadrupeds entering public awareness. This included viral videos of consumer robots carrying firearms, and later, commercial sales of flame-throwing models. While MARSOC emphasized that weapons were just one potential use case under review, experts noted that the increasing integration of AI into military robotics raised questions about how long humans would remain in control of lethal force decisions.

Microsoft Windows AI is watching

A screenshot of Microsoft's new

A screenshot of Microsoft’s new “Recall” feature in action. Credit: Microsoft

In an era where many people already feel like they have no privacy due to tech encroachments, Microsoft dialed it up to an extreme degree in May. That’s when Microsoft unveiled a controversial Windows 11 feature called “Recall” that continuously captures screenshots of users’ PC activities every few seconds for later AI-powered search and retrieval. The feature, designed for new Copilot+ PCs using Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite chips, promised to help users find past activities, including app usage, meeting content, and web browsing history.

While Microsoft emphasized that Recall would store encrypted snapshots locally and allow users to exclude specific apps or websites, the announcement raised immediate privacy concerns, as Ars senior technology reporter Andrew Cunningham covered. It also came with a technical toll, requiring significant hardware resources, including 256GB of storage space, with 25GB dedicated to storing approximately three months of user activity. After Microsoft pulled the initial test version due to public backlash, Recall later entered public preview in November with reportedly enhanced security measures. But secure spyware is still spyware—Recall, when enabled, still watches nearly everything you do on your computer and keeps a record of it.

Google Search told people to eat rocks

This is fine. Credit: Getty Images

In May, Ars senior gaming reporter Kyle Orland (who assisted commendably with the AI beat throughout the year) covered Google’s newly launched AI Overview feature. It faced immediate criticism when users discovered that it frequently provided false and potentially dangerous information in its search result summaries. Among its most alarming responses, the system advised humans could safely consume rocks, incorrectly citing scientific sources about the geological diet of marine organisms. The system’s other errors included recommending nonexistent car maintenance products, suggesting unsafe food preparation techniques, and confusing historical figures who shared names.

The problems stemmed from several issues, including the AI treating joke posts as factual sources and misinterpreting context from original web content. But most of all, the system relies on web results as indicators of authority, which we called a flawed design. While Google defended the system, stating these errors occurred mainly with uncommon queries, a company spokesperson acknowledged they would use these “isolated examples” to refine their systems. But to this day, AI Overview still makes frequent mistakes.

Stable Diffusion generates body horror

An AI-generated image created using Stable Diffusion 3 of a girl lying in the grass.

An AI-generated image created using Stable Diffusion 3 of a girl lying in the grass. Credit: HorneyMetalBeing

In June, Stability AI’s release of the image synthesis model Stable Diffusion 3 Medium drew criticism online for its poor handling of human anatomy in AI-generated images. Users across social media platforms shared examples of the model producing what we now like to call jabberwockies—AI generation failures with distorted bodies, misshapen hands, and surreal anatomical errors, and many in the AI image-generation community viewed it as a significant step backward from previous image-synthesis capabilities.

Reddit users attributed these failures to Stability AI’s aggressive filtering of adult content from the training data, which apparently impaired the model’s ability to accurately render human figures. The troubled release coincided with broader organizational challenges at Stability AI, including the March departure of CEO Emad Mostaque, multiple staff layoffs, and the exit of three key engineers who had helped develop the technology. Some of those engineers founded Black Forest Labs in August and released Flux, which has become the latest open-weights AI image model to beat.

ChatGPT Advanced Voice imitates human voice in testing

An illustration of a computer synthesizer spewing out letters.

AI voice-synthesis models are master imitators these days, and they are capable of much more than many people realize. In August, we covered a story where OpenAI’s ChatGPT Advanced Voice Mode feature unexpectedly imitated a user’s voice during the company’s internal testing, revealed by OpenAI after the fact in safety testing documentation. To prevent future instances of an AI assistant suddenly speaking in your own voice (which, let’s be honest, would probably freak people out), the company created an output classifier system to prevent unauthorized voice imitation. OpenAI says that Advanced Voice Mode now catches all meaningful deviations from approved system voices.

Independent AI researcher Simon Willison discussed the implications with Ars Technica, noting that while OpenAI restricted its model’s full voice synthesis capabilities, similar technology would likely emerge from other sources within the year. Meanwhile, the rapid advancement of AI voice replication has caused general concern about its potential misuse, although companies like ElevenLabs have already been offering voice cloning services for some time.

San Francisco’s robotic car horn symphony

A Waymo self-driving car in front of Google's San Francisco headquarters, San Francisco, California, June 7, 2024.

A Waymo self-driving car in front of Google’s San Francisco headquarters, San Francisco, California, June 7, 2024. Credit: Getty Images

In August, San Francisco residents got a noisy taste of robo-dystopia when Waymo’s self-driving cars began creating an unexpected nightly disturbance in the South of Market district. In a parking lot off 2nd Street, the cars congregated autonomously every night during rider lulls at 4 am and began engaging in extended honking matches at each other while attempting to park.

Local resident Christopher Cherry’s initial optimism about the robotic fleet’s presence dissolved as the mechanical chorus grew louder each night, affecting residents in nearby high-rises. The nocturnal tech disruption served as a lesson in the unintentional effects of autonomous systems when run in aggregate.

Larry Ellison dreams of all-seeing AI cameras

A colorized photo of CCTV cameras in London, 2024.

In September, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison painted a bleak vision of ubiquitous AI surveillance during a company financial meeting. The 80-year-old database billionaire described a future where AI would monitor citizens through networks of cameras and drones, asserting that the oversight would ensure lawful behavior from both police and the public.

His surveillance predictions reminded us of parallels to existing systems in China, where authorities already used AI to sort surveillance data on citizens as part of the country’s “sharp eyes” campaign from 2015 to 2020. Ellison’s statement reflected the sort of worst-case tech surveillance state scenario—likely antithetical to any sort of free society—that dozens of sci-fi novels of the 20th century warned us about.

A dead father sends new letters home

An AI-generated image featuring Dad's Uppercase handwriting.

An AI-generated image featuring my late father’s handwriting. Credit: Benj Edwards / Flux

AI has made many of us do weird things in 2024, including this writer. In October, I used an AI synthesis model called Flux to reproduce my late father’s handwriting with striking accuracy. After scanning 30 samples from his engineering notebooks, I trained the model using computing time that cost less than five dollars. The resulting text captured his distinctive uppercase style, which he developed during his career as an electronics engineer.

I enjoyed creating images showing his handwriting in various contexts, from folder labels to skywriting, and made the trained model freely available online for others to use. While I approached it as a tribute to my father (who would have appreciated the technical achievement), many people found the whole experience weird and somewhat disturbing. The things we unhinged Bing Chat-like journalists do to bring awareness to a topic are sometimes unconventional. So I guess it counts for this list!

For 2025? Expect even more AI

Thanks for reading Ars Technica this past year and following along with our team coverage of this rapidly emerging and expanding field. We appreciate your kind words of support. Ars Technica’s 2024 AI words of the year were: vibemarking, deep doubt, and the aforementioned jabberwocky. The old stalwart “confabulation” also made several notable appearances. Tune in again next year when we continue to try to figure out how to concisely describe novel scenarios in emerging technology by labeling them.

Looking back, our prediction for 2024 in AI last year was “buckle up.” It seems fitting, given the weirdness detailed above. Especially the part about the robot dogs with guns. For 2025, AI will likely inspire more chaos ahead, but also potentially get put to serious work as a productivity tool, so this time, our prediction is “buckle down.”

Finally, we’d like to ask: What was the craziest story about AI in 2024 from your perspective? Whether you love AI or hate it, feel free to suggest your own additions to our list in the comments. Happy New Year!

Photo of Benj Edwards

Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.

2024: The year AI drove everyone crazy Read More »

twirling-body-horror-in-gymnastics-video-exposes-ai’s-flaws

Twirling body horror in gymnastics video exposes AI’s flaws


The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe

Nonsensical jabberwocky movements created by OpenAI’s Sora are typical for current AI-generated video, and here’s why.

A still image from an AI-generated video of an ever-morphing synthetic gymnast. Credit: OpenAI / Deedy

On Wednesday, a video from OpenAI’s newly launched Sora AI video generator went viral on social media, featuring a gymnast who sprouts extra limbs and briefly loses her head during what appears to be an Olympic-style floor routine.

As it turns out, the nonsensical synthesis errors in the video—what we like to call “jabberwockies”—hint at technical details about how AI video generators work and how they might get better in the future.

But before we dig into the details, let’s take a look at the video.

An AI-generated video of an impossible gymnast, created with OpenAI Sora.

In the video, we see a view of what looks like a floor gymnastics routine. The subject of the video flips and flails as new legs and arms rapidly and fluidly emerge and morph out of her twirling and transforming body. At one point, about 9 seconds in, she loses her head, and it reattaches to her body spontaneously.

“As cool as the new Sora is, gymnastics is still very much the Turing test for AI video,” wrote venture capitalist Deedy Das when he originally shared the video on X. The video inspired plenty of reaction jokes, such as this reply to a similar post on Bluesky: “hi, gymnastics expert here! this is not funny, gymnasts only do this when they’re in extreme distress.”

We reached out to Das, and he confirmed that he generated the video using Sora. He also provided the prompt, which was very long and split into four parts, generated by Anthropic’s Claude, using complex instructions like “The gymnast initiates from the back right corner, taking position with her right foot pointed behind in B-plus stance.”

“I’ve known for the last 6 months having played with text to video models that they struggle with complex physics movements like gymnastics,” Das told us in a conversation. “I had to try it [in Sora] because the character consistency seemed improved. Overall, it was an improvement because previously… the gymnast would just teleport away or change their outfit mid flip, but overall it still looks downright horrifying. We hoped AI video would learn physics by default, but that hasn’t happened yet!”

So what went wrong?

When examining how the video fails, you must first consider how Sora “knows” how to create anything that resembles a gymnastics routine. During the training phase, when the Sora model was created, OpenAI fed example videos of gymnastics routines (among many other types of videos) into a specialized neural network that associates the progression of images with text-based descriptions of them.

That type of training is a distinct phase that happens once before the model’s release. Later, when the finished model is running and you give a video-synthesis model like Sora a written prompt, it draws upon statistical associations between words and images to produce a predictive output. It’s continuously making next-frame predictions based on the last frame of the video. But Sora has another trick for attempting to preserve coherency over time. “By giving the model foresight of many frames at a time,” reads OpenAI’s Sora System Card, we’ve solved a challenging problem of making sure a subject stays the same even when it goes out of view temporarily.”

A still image from a moment where the AI-generated gymnast loses her head. It soon re-attaches to her body.

A still image from a moment where the AI-generated gymnast loses her head. It soon reattaches to her body. Credit: OpenAI / Deedy

Maybe not quite solved yet. In this case, rapidly moving limbs prove a particular challenge when attempting to predict the next frame properly. The result is an incoherent amalgam of gymnastics footage that shows the same gymnast performing running flips and spins, but Sora doesn’t know the correct order in which to assemble them because it’s pulling on statistical averages of wildly different body movements in its relatively limited training data of gymnastics videos, which also likely did not include limb-level precision in its descriptive metadata.

Sora doesn’t know anything about physics or how the human body should work, either. It’s drawing upon statistical associations between pixels in the videos in its training dataset to predict the next frame, with a little bit of look-ahead to keep things more consistent.

This problem is not unique to Sora. All AI video generators can produce wildly nonsensical results when your prompts reach too far past their training data, as we saw earlier this year when testing Runway’s Gen-3. In fact, we ran some gymnast prompts through the latest open source AI video model that may rival Sora in some ways, Hunyuan Video, and it produced similar twirling, morphing results, seen below. And we used a much simpler prompt than Das did with Sora.

An example from open source Chinese AI model Hunyuan Video with the prompt, “A young woman doing a complex floor gymnastics routine at the olympics, featuring running and flips.”

AI models based on transformer technology are fundamentally imitative in nature. They’re great at transforming one type of data into another type or morphing one style into another. What they’re not great at (yet) is producing coherent generations that are truly original. So if you happen to provide a prompt that closely matches a training video, you might get a good result. Otherwise, you may get madness.

As we wrote about image-synthesis model Stable Diffusion 3’s body horror generations earlier this year, “Basically, any time a user prompt homes in on a concept that isn’t represented well in the AI model’s training dataset, the image-synthesis model will confabulate its best interpretation of what the user is asking for. And sometimes that can be completely terrifying.”

For the engineers who make these models, success in AI video generation quickly becomes a question of how many examples (and how much training) you need before the model can generalize enough to produce convincing and coherent results. It’s also a question of metadata quality—how accurately the videos are labeled. In this case, OpenAI used an AI vision model to describe its training videos, which helped improve quality, but apparently not enough—yet.

We’re looking at an AI jabberwocky in action

In a way, the type of generation failure in the gymnast video is a form of confabulation (or hallucination, as some call it), but it’s even worse because it’s not coherent. So instead of calling it a confabulation, which is a plausible-sounding fabrication, we’re going to lean on a new term, “jabberwocky,” which Dictionary.com defines as “a playful imitation of language consisting of invented, meaningless words; nonsense; gibberish,” taken from Lewis Carroll’s nonsense poem of the same name. Imitation and nonsense, you say? Check and check.

We’ve covered jabberwockies in AI video before with people mocking Chinese video-synthesis models, a monstrously weird AI beer commercial, and even Will Smith eating spaghetti. They’re a form of misconfabulation where an AI model completely fails to produce a plausible output. This will not be the last time we see them, either.

How could AI video models get better and avoid jabberwockies?

In our coverage of Gen-3 Alpha, we called the threshold where you get a level of useful generalization in an AI model the “illusion of understanding,” where training data and training time reach a critical mass that produces good enough results to generalize across enough novel prompts.

One of the key reasons language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 impressed users was that they finally reached a size where they had absorbed enough information to give the appearance of genuinely understanding the world. With video synthesis, achieving this same apparent level of “understanding” will require not just massive amounts of well-labeled training data but also the computational power to process it effectively.

AI boosters hope that these current models represent one of the key steps on the way to something like truly general intelligence (often called AGI) in text, or in AI video, what OpenAI and Runway researchers call “world simulators” or “world models” that somehow encode enough physics rules about the world to produce any realistic result.

Judging by the morphing alien shoggoth gymnast, that may still be a ways off. Still, it’s early days in AI video generation, and judging by how quickly AI image-synthesis models like Midjourney progressed from crude abstract shapes into coherent imagery, it’s likely video synthesis will have a similar trajectory over time. Until then, enjoy the AI-generated jabberwocky madness.

Photo of Benj Edwards

Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.

Twirling body horror in gymnastics video exposes AI’s flaws Read More »

claude-ai-to-process-secret-government-data-through-new-palantir-deal

Claude AI to process secret government data through new Palantir deal

An ethical minefield

Since its founders started Anthropic in 2021, the company has marketed itself as one that takes an ethics- and safety-focused approach to AI development. The company differentiates itself from competitors like OpenAI by adopting what it calls responsible development practices and self-imposed ethical constraints on its models, such as its “Constitutional AI” system.

As Futurism points out, this new defense partnership appears to conflict with Anthropic’s public “good guy” persona, and pro-AI pundits on social media are noticing. Frequent AI commentator Nabeel S. Qureshi wrote on X, “Imagine telling the safety-concerned, effective altruist founders of Anthropic in 2021 that a mere three years after founding the company, they’d be signing partnerships to deploy their ~AGI model straight to the military frontlines.

Anthropic's

Anthropic’s “Constitutional AI” logo.

Credit: Anthropic / Benj Edwards

Anthropic’s “Constitutional AI” logo. Credit: Anthropic / Benj Edwards

Aside from the implications of working with defense and intelligence agencies, the deal connects Anthropic with Palantir, a controversial company which recently won a $480 million contract to develop an AI-powered target identification system called Maven Smart System for the US Army. Project Maven has sparked criticism within the tech sector over military applications of AI technology.

It’s worth noting that Anthropic’s terms of service do outline specific rules and limitations for government use. These terms permit activities like foreign intelligence analysis and identifying covert influence campaigns, while prohibiting uses such as disinformation, weapons development, censorship, and domestic surveillance. Government agencies that maintain regular communication with Anthropic about their use of Claude may receive broader permissions to use the AI models.

Even if Claude is never used to target a human or as part of a weapons system, other issues remain. While its Claude models are highly regarded in the AI community, they (like all LLMs) have the tendency to confabulate, potentially generating incorrect information in a way that is difficult to detect.

That’s a huge potential problem that could impact Claude’s effectiveness with secret government data, and that fact, along with the other associations, has Futurism’s Victor Tangermann worried. As he puts it, “It’s a disconcerting partnership that sets up the AI industry’s growing ties with the US military-industrial complex, a worrying trend that should raise all kinds of alarm bells given the tech’s many inherent flaws—and even more so when lives could be at stake.”

Claude AI to process secret government data through new Palantir deal Read More »

hospitals-adopt-error-prone-ai-transcription-tools-despite-warnings

Hospitals adopt error-prone AI transcription tools despite warnings

In one case from the study cited by AP, when a speaker described “two other girls and one lady,” Whisper added fictional text specifying that they “were Black.” In another, the audio said, “He, the boy, was going to, I’m not sure exactly, take the umbrella.” Whisper transcribed it to, “He took a big piece of a cross, a teeny, small piece … I’m sure he didn’t have a terror knife so he killed a number of people.”

An OpenAI spokesperson told the AP that the company appreciates the researchers’ findings and that it actively studies how to reduce fabrications and incorporates feedback in updates to the model.

Why Whisper confabulates

The key to Whisper’s unsuitability in high-risk domains comes from its propensity to sometimes confabulate, or plausibly make up, inaccurate outputs. The AP report says, “Researchers aren’t certain why Whisper and similar tools hallucinate,” but that isn’t true. We know exactly why Transformer-based AI models like Whisper behave this way.

Whisper is based on technology that is designed to predict the next most likely token (chunk of data) that should appear after a sequence of tokens provided by a user. In the case of ChatGPT, the input tokens come in the form of a text prompt. In the case of Whisper, the input is tokenized audio data.

The transcription output from Whisper is a prediction of what is most likely, not what is most accurate. Accuracy in Transformer-based outputs is typically proportional to the presence of relevant accurate data in the training dataset, but it is never guaranteed. If there is ever a case where there isn’t enough contextual information in its neural network for Whisper to make an accurate prediction about how to transcribe a particular segment of audio, the model will fall back on what it “knows” about the relationships between sounds and words it has learned from its training data.

Hospitals adopt error-prone AI transcription tools despite warnings Read More »

openai-releases-chatgpt-app-for-windows

OpenAI releases ChatGPT app for Windows

On Thursday, OpenAI released an early Windows version of its first ChatGPT app for Windows, following a Mac version that launched in May. Currently, it’s only available to subscribers of Plus, Team, Enterprise, and Edu versions of ChatGPT, and users can download it for free in the Microsoft Store for Windows.

OpenAI is positioning the release as a beta test. “This is an early version, and we plan to bring the full experience to all users later this year,” OpenAI writes on the Microsoft Store entry for the app. (Interestingly, ChatGPT shows up as being rated “T for Teen” by the ESRB in the Windows store, despite not being a video game.)

A screenshot of the new Windows ChatGPT app captured on October 18, 2024.

A screenshot of the new Windows ChatGPT app captured on October 18, 2024.

Credit: Benj Edwards

A screenshot of the new Windows ChatGPT app captured on October 18, 2024. Credit: Benj Edwards

Upon opening the app, OpenAI requires users to log into a paying ChatGPT account, and from there, the app is basically identical to the web browser version of ChatGPT. You can currently use it to access several models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o with Canvas, 01-preview, 01-mini, GPT-4o mini, and GPT-4. Also, it can generate images using DALL-E 3 or analyze uploaded files and images.

If you’re running Windows 11, you can instantly call up a small ChatGPT window when the app is open using an Alt+Space shortcut (it did not work in Windows 10 when we tried). That could be handy for asking ChatGPT a quick question at any time.

A screenshot of the new Windows ChatGPT app listing in the Microsoft Store captured on October 18, 2024.

Credit: Benj Edwards

A screenshot of the new Windows ChatGPT app listing in the Microsoft Store captured on October 18, 2024. Credit: Benj Edwards

And just like the web version, all the AI processing takes place in the cloud on OpenAI’s servers, which means an Internet connection is required.

So as usual, chat like somebody’s watching, and don’t rely on ChatGPT as a factual reference for important decisions—GPT-4o in particular is great at telling you what you want to hear, whether it’s correct or not. As OpenAI says in a small disclaimer at the bottom of the app window: “ChatGPT can make mistakes.”

OpenAI releases ChatGPT app for Windows Read More »

researchers-describe-how-to-tell-if-chatgpt-is-confabulating

Researchers describe how to tell if ChatGPT is confabulating

Researchers describe how to tell if ChatGPT is confabulating

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

It’s one of the world’s worst-kept secrets that large language models give blatantly false answers to queries and do so with a confidence that’s indistinguishable from when they get things right. There are a number of reasons for this. The AI could have been trained on misinformation; the answer could require some extrapolation from facts that the LLM isn’t capable of; or some aspect of the LLM’s training might have incentivized a falsehood.

But perhaps the simplest explanation is that an LLM doesn’t recognize what constitutes a correct answer but is compelled to provide one. So it simply makes something up, a habit that has been termed confabulation.

Figuring out when an LLM is making something up would obviously have tremendous value, given how quickly people have started relying on them for everything from college essays to job applications. Now, researchers from the University of Oxford say they’ve found a relatively simple way to determine when LLMs appear to be confabulating that works with all popular models and across a broad range of subjects. And, in doing so, they develop evidence that most of the alternative facts LLMs provide are a product of confabulation.

Catching confabulation

The new research is strictly about confabulations, and not instances such as training on false inputs. As the Oxford team defines them in their paper describing the work, confabulations are where “LLMs fluently make claims that are both wrong and arbitrary—by which we mean that the answer is sensitive to irrelevant details such as random seed.”

The reasoning behind their work is actually quite simple. LLMs aren’t trained for accuracy; they’re simply trained on massive quantities of text and learn to produce human-sounding phrasing through that. If enough text examples in its training consistently present something as a fact, then the LLM is likely to present it as a fact. But if the examples in its training are few, or inconsistent in their facts, then the LLMs synthesize a plausible-sounding answer that is likely incorrect.

But the LLM could also run into a similar situation when it has multiple options for phrasing the right answer. To use an example from the researchers’ paper, “Paris,” “It’s in Paris,” and “France’s capital, Paris” are all valid answers to “Where’s the Eiffel Tower?” So, statistical uncertainty, termed entropy in this context, can arise either when the LLM isn’t certain about how to phrase the right answer or when it can’t identify the right answer.

This means it’s not a great idea to simply force the LLM to return “I don’t know” when confronted with several roughly equivalent answers. We’d probably block a lot of correct answers by doing so.

So instead, the researchers focus on what they call semantic entropy. This evaluates all the statistically likely answers evaluated by the LLM and determines how many of them are semantically equivalent. If a large number all have the same meaning, then the LLM is likely uncertain about phrasing but has the right answer. If not, then it is presumably in a situation where it would be prone to confabulation and should be prevented from doing so.

Researchers describe how to tell if ChatGPT is confabulating Read More »

duckduckgo-offers-“anonymous”-access-to-ai-chatbots-through-new-service

DuckDuckGo offers “anonymous” access to AI chatbots through new service

anonymous confabulations —

DDG offers LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Mistral for factually-iffy conversations.

DuckDuckGo's AI Chat promotional image.

DuckDuckGo

On Thursday, DuckDuckGo unveiled a new “AI Chat” service that allows users to converse with four mid-range large language models (LLMs) from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Mistral in an interface similar to ChatGPT while attempting to preserve privacy and anonymity. While the AI models involved can output inaccurate information readily, the site allows users to test different mid-range LLMs without having to install anything or sign up for an account.

DuckDuckGo’s AI Chat currently features access to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo, Anthropic’s Claude 3 Haiku, and two open source models, Meta’s Llama 3 and Mistral’s Mixtral 8x7B. The service is currently free to use within daily limits. Users can access AI Chat through the DuckDuckGo search engine, direct links to the site, or by using “!ai” or “!chat” shortcuts in the search field. AI Chat can also be disabled in the site’s settings for users with accounts.

According to DuckDuckGo, chats on the service are anonymized, with metadata and IP address removed to prevent tracing back to individuals. The company states that chats are not used for AI model training, citing its privacy policy and terms of use.

“We have agreements in place with all model providers to ensure that any saved chats are completely deleted by the providers within 30 days,” says DuckDuckGo, “and that none of the chats made on our platform can be used to train or improve the models.”

An example of DuckDuckGo AI Chat with GPT-3.5 answering a silly question in an inaccurate way.

Enlarge / An example of DuckDuckGo AI Chat with GPT-3.5 answering a silly question in an inaccurate way.

Benj Edwards

However, the privacy experience is not bulletproof because, in the case of GPT-3.5 and Claude Haiku, DuckDuckGo is required to send a user’s inputs to remote servers for processing over the Internet. Given certain inputs (i.e., “Hey, GPT, my name is Bob, and I live on Main Street, and I just murdered Bill”), a user could still potentially be identified if such an extreme need arose.

While the service appears to work well for us, there’s a question about its utility. For example, while GPT-3.5 initially wowed people when it launched with ChatGPT in 2022, it also confabulated a lot—and it still does. GPT-4 was the first major LLM to get confabulations under control to a point where the bot became more reasonably useful for some tasks (though this itself is a controversial point), but that more capable model isn’t present in DuckDuckGo’s AI Chat. Also missing are similar GPT-4-level models like Claude Opus or Google’s Gemini Ultra, likely because they are far more expensive to run. DuckDuckGo says it may roll out paid plans in the future, and those may include higher daily usage limits or access to “more advanced models.”)

It’s true that the other three models generally (and subjectively) pass GPT-3.5 in capability for coding with lower hallucinations, but they can still make things up, too. With DuckDuckGo AI Chat as it stands, the company is left with a chatbot novelty with a decent interface and the promise that your conversations with it will remain private. But what use are fully private AI conversations if they are full of errors?

Mixtral 8x7B on DuckDuckGo AI Chat when asked about the author. Everything in red boxes is sadly incorrect, but it provides an interesting fantasy scenario. It's a good example of an LLM plausibly filling gaps between concepts that are underrepresented in its training data, called confabulation. For the record, Llama 3 gives a more accurate answer.

Enlarge / Mixtral 8x7B on DuckDuckGo AI Chat when asked about the author. Everything in red boxes is sadly incorrect, but it provides an interesting fantasy scenario. It’s a good example of an LLM plausibly filling gaps between concepts that are underrepresented in its training data, called confabulation. For the record, Llama 3 gives a more accurate answer.

Benj Edwards

As DuckDuckGo itself states in its privacy policy, “By its very nature, AI Chat generates text with limited information. As such, Outputs that appear complete or accurate because of their detail or specificity may not be. For example, AI Chat cannot dynamically retrieve information and so Outputs may be outdated. You should not rely on any Output without verifying its contents using other sources, especially for professional advice (like medical, financial, or legal advice).”

So, have fun talking to bots, but tread carefully. They’ll easily “lie” to your face because they don’t understand what they are saying and are tuned to output statistically plausible information, not factual references.

DuckDuckGo offers “anonymous” access to AI chatbots through new service Read More »

can-a-technology-called-rag-keep-ai-models-from-making-stuff-up?

Can a technology called RAG keep AI models from making stuff up?

Can a technology called RAG keep AI models from making stuff up?

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

We’ve been living through the generative AI boom for nearly a year and a half now, following the late 2022 release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. But despite transformative effects on companies’ share prices, generative AI tools powered by large language models (LLMs) still have major drawbacks that have kept them from being as useful as many would like them to be. Retrieval augmented generation, or RAG, aims to fix some of those drawbacks.

Perhaps the most prominent drawback of LLMs is their tendency toward confabulation (also called “hallucination”), which is a statistical gap-filling phenomenon AI language models produce when they are tasked with reproducing knowledge that wasn’t present in the training data. They generate plausible-sounding text that can veer toward accuracy when the training data is solid but otherwise may just be completely made up.

Relying on confabulating AI models gets people and companies in trouble, as we’ve covered in the past. In 2023, we saw two instances of lawyers citing legal cases, confabulated by AI, that didn’t exist. We’ve covered claims against OpenAI in which ChatGPT confabulated and accused innocent people of doing terrible things. In February, we wrote about Air Canada’s customer service chatbot inventing a refund policy, and in March, a New York City chatbot was caught confabulating city regulations.

So if generative AI aims to be the technology that propels humanity into the future, someone needs to iron out the confabulation kinks along the way. That’s where RAG comes in. Its proponents hope the technique will help turn generative AI technology into reliable assistants that can supercharge productivity without requiring a human to double-check or second-guess the answers.

“RAG is a way of improving LLM performance, in essence by blending the LLM process with a web search or other document look-up process” to help LLMs stick to the facts, according to Noah Giansiracusa, associate professor of mathematics at Bentley University.

Let’s take a closer look at how it works and what its limitations are.

A framework for enhancing AI accuracy

Although RAG is now seen as a technique to help fix issues with generative AI, it actually predates ChatGPT. Researchers coined the term in a 2020 academic paper by researchers at Facebook AI Research (FAIR, now Meta AI Research), University College London, and New York University.

As we’ve mentioned, LLMs struggle with facts. Google’s entry into the generative AI race, Bard, made an embarrassing error on its first public demonstration back in February 2023 about the James Webb Space Telescope. The error wiped around $100 billion off the value of parent company Alphabet. LLMs produce the most statistically likely response based on their training data and don’t understand anything they output, meaning they can present false information that seems accurate if you don’t have expert knowledge on a subject.

LLMs also lack up-to-date knowledge and the ability to identify gaps in their knowledge. “When a human tries to answer a question, they can rely on their memory and come up with a response on the fly, or they could do something like Google it or peruse Wikipedia and then try to piece an answer together from what they find there—still filtering that info through their internal knowledge of the matter,” said Giansiracusa.

But LLMs aren’t humans, of course. Their training data can age quickly, particularly in more time-sensitive queries. In addition, the LLM often can’t distinguish specific sources of its knowledge, as all its training data is blended together into a kind of soup.

In theory, RAG should make keeping AI models up to date far cheaper and easier. “The beauty of RAG is that when new information becomes available, rather than having to retrain the model, all that’s needed is to augment the model’s external knowledge base with the updated information,” said Peterson. “This reduces LLM development time and cost while enhancing the model’s scalability.”

Can a technology called RAG keep AI models from making stuff up? Read More »

google’s-ai-overview-is-flawed-by-design,-and-a-new-company-blog-post-hints-at-why

Google’s AI Overview is flawed by design, and a new company blog post hints at why

guided by voices —

Google: “There are bound to be some oddities and errors” in system that told people to eat rocks.

A selection of Google mascot characters created by the company.

Enlarge / The Google “G” logo surrounded by whimsical characters, all of which look stunned and surprised.

On Thursday, Google capped off a rough week of providing inaccurate and sometimes dangerous answers through its experimental AI Overview feature by authoring a follow-up blog post titled, “AI Overviews: About last week.” In the post, attributed to Google VP Liz Reid, head of Google Search, the firm formally acknowledged issues with the feature and outlined steps taken to improve a system that appears flawed by design, even if it doesn’t realize it is admitting it.

To recap, the AI Overview feature—which the company showed off at Google I/O a few weeks ago—aims to provide search users with summarized answers to questions by using an AI model integrated with Google’s web ranking systems. Right now, it’s an experimental feature that is not active for everyone, but when a participating user searches for a topic, they might see an AI-generated answer at the top of the results, pulled from highly ranked web content and summarized by an AI model.

While Google claims this approach is “highly effective” and on par with its Featured Snippets in terms of accuracy, the past week has seen numerous examples of the AI system generating bizarre, incorrect, or even potentially harmful responses, as we detailed in a recent feature where Ars reporter Kyle Orland replicated many of the unusual outputs.

Drawing inaccurate conclusions from the web

On Wednesday morning, Google's AI Overview was erroneously telling us the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn were available in 1993.

Enlarge / On Wednesday morning, Google’s AI Overview was erroneously telling us the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn were available in 1993.

Kyle Orland / Google

Given the circulating AI Overview examples, Google almost apologizes in the post and says, “We hold ourselves to a high standard, as do our users, so we expect and appreciate the feedback, and take it seriously.” But Reid, in an attempt to justify the errors, then goes into some very revealing detail about why AI Overviews provides erroneous information:

AI Overviews work very differently than chatbots and other LLM products that people may have tried out. They’re not simply generating an output based on training data. While AI Overviews are powered by a customized language model, the model is integrated with our core web ranking systems and designed to carry out traditional “search” tasks, like identifying relevant, high-quality results from our index. That’s why AI Overviews don’t just provide text output, but include relevant links so people can explore further. Because accuracy is paramount in Search, AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.

This means that AI Overviews generally don’t “hallucinate” or make things up in the ways that other LLM products might.

Here we see the fundamental flaw of the system: “AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.” The design is based on the false assumption that Google’s page-ranking algorithm favors accurate results and not SEO-gamed garbage. Google Search has been broken for some time, and now the company is relying on those gamed and spam-filled results to feed its new AI model.

Even if the AI model draws from a more accurate source, as with the 1993 game console search seen above, Google’s AI language model can still make inaccurate conclusions about the “accurate” data, confabulating erroneous information in a flawed summary of the information available.

Generally ignoring the folly of basing its AI results on a broken page-ranking algorithm, Google’s blog post instead attributes the commonly circulated errors to several other factors, including users making nonsensical searches “aimed at producing erroneous results.” Google does admit faults with the AI model, like misinterpreting queries, misinterpreting “a nuance of language on the web,” and lacking sufficient high-quality information on certain topics. It also suggests that some of the more egregious examples circulating on social media are fake screenshots.

“Some of these faked results have been obvious and silly,” Reid writes. “Others have implied that we returned dangerous results for topics like leaving dogs in cars, smoking while pregnant, and depression. Those AI Overviews never appeared. So we’d encourage anyone encountering these screenshots to do a search themselves to check.”

(No doubt some of the social media examples are fake, but it’s worth noting that any attempts to replicate those early examples now will likely fail because Google will have manually blocked the results. And it is potentially a testament to how broken Google Search is if people believed extreme fake examples in the first place.)

While addressing the “nonsensical searches” angle in the post, Reid uses the example search, “How many rocks should I eat each day,” which went viral in a tweet on May 23. Reid says, “Prior to these screenshots going viral, practically no one asked Google that question.” And since there isn’t much data on the web that answers it, she says there is a “data void” or “information gap” that was filled by satirical content found on the web, and the AI model found it and pushed it as an answer, much like Featured Snippets might. So basically, it was working exactly as designed.

A screenshot of an AI Overview query,

Enlarge / A screenshot of an AI Overview query, “How many rocks should I eat each day” that went viral on X last week.

Google’s AI Overview is flawed by design, and a new company blog post hints at why Read More »

some-teachers-are-now-using-chatgpt-to-grade-papers

Some teachers are now using ChatGPT to grade papers

robots in disguise —

New AI tools aim to help with grading, lesson plans—but may have serious drawbacks.

An elementary-school-aged child touching a robot hand.

In a notable shift toward sanctioned use of AI in schools, some educators in grades 3–12 are now using a ChatGPT-powered grading tool called Writable, reports Axios. The tool, acquired last summer by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, is designed to streamline the grading process, potentially offering time-saving benefits for teachers. But is it a good idea to outsource critical feedback to a machine?

Writable lets teachers submit student essays for analysis by ChatGPT, which then provides commentary and observations on the work. The AI-generated feedback goes to teacher review before being passed on to students so that a human remains in the loop.

“Make feedback more actionable with AI suggestions delivered to teachers as the writing happens,” Writable promises on its AI website. “Target specific areas for improvement with powerful, rubric-aligned comments, and save grading time with AI-generated draft scores.” The service also provides AI-written writing-prompt suggestions: “Input any topic and instantly receive unique prompts that engage students and are tailored to your classroom needs.”

Writable can reportedly help a teacher develop a curriculum, although we have not tried the functionality ourselves. “Once in Writable you can also use AI to create curriculum units based on any novel, generate essays, multi-section assignments, multiple-choice questions, and more, all with included answer keys,” the site claims.

The reliance on AI for grading will likely have drawbacks. Automated grading might encourage some educators to take shortcuts, diminishing the value of personalized feedback. Over time, the augmentation from AI may allow teachers to be less familiar with the material they are teaching. The use of cloud-based AI tools may have privacy implications for teachers and students. Also, ChatGPT isn’t a perfect analyst. It can get things wrong and potentially confabulate (make up) false information, possibly misinterpret a student’s work, or provide erroneous information in lesson plans.

Yet, as Axios reports, proponents assert that AI grading tools like Writable may free up valuable time for teachers, enabling them to focus on more creative and impactful teaching activities. The company selling Writable promotes it as a way to empower educators, supposedly offering them the flexibility to allocate more time to direct student interaction and personalized teaching. Of course, without an in-depth critical review, all claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Amid these discussions, there’s a divide among parents regarding the use of AI in evaluating students’ academic performance. A recent poll of parents revealed mixed opinions, with nearly half of the respondents open to the idea of AI-assisted grading.

As the generative AI craze permeates every space, it’s no surprise that Writable isn’t the only AI-powered grading tool on the market. Others include Crowdmark, Gradescope, and EssayGrader. McGraw Hill is reportedly developing similar technology aimed at enhancing teacher assessment and feedback.

Some teachers are now using ChatGPT to grade papers Read More »

rhyming-ai-powered-clock-sometimes-lies-about-the-time,-makes-up-words

Rhyming AI-powered clock sometimes lies about the time, makes up words

Confabulation time —

Poem/1 Kickstarter seeks $103K for fun ChatGPT-fed clock that may hallucinate the time.

A CAD render of the Poem/1 sitting on a bookshelf.

Enlarge / A CAD render of the Poem/1 sitting on a bookshelf.

On Tuesday, product developer Matt Webb launched a Kickstarter funding project for a whimsical e-paper clock called the “Poem/1” that tells the current time using AI and rhyming poetry. It’s powered by the ChatGPT API, and Webb says that sometimes ChatGPT will lie about the time or make up words to make the rhymes work.

“Hey so I made a clock. It tells the time with a brand new poem every minute, composed by ChatGPT. It’s sometimes profound, and sometimes weird, and occasionally it fibs about what the actual time is to make a rhyme work,” Webb writes on his Kickstarter page.

The $126 clock is the product of Webb’s Acts Not Facts, which he bills as “.” Despite the net-connected service aspect of the clock, Webb says it will not require a subscription to function.

A labeled CAD rendering of the Poem/1 clock, representing its final shipping configuration.

Enlarge / A labeled CAD rendering of the Poem/1 clock, representing its final shipping configuration.

There are 1,440 minutes in a day, so Poem/1 needs to display 1,440 unique poems to work. The clock features a monochrome e-paper screen and pulls its poetry rhymes via Wi-Fi from a central server run by Webb’s company. To save money, that server pulls poems from ChatGPT’s API and will share them out to many Poem/1 clocks at once. This prevents costly API fees that would add up if your clock were querying OpenAI’s servers 1,440 times a day, non-stop, forever. “I’m reserving a % of the retail price from each clock in a bank account to cover AI and server costs for 5 years,” Webb writes.

For hackers, Webb says that you’ll be able to change the back-end server URL of the Poem/1 from the default to whatever you want, so it can display custom text every minute of the day. Webb says he will document and publish the API when Poem/1 ships.

Hallucination time

A photo of a Poem/1 prototype with a hallucinated time, according to Webb.

Enlarge / A photo of a Poem/1 prototype with a hallucinated time, according to Webb.

Given the Poem/1’s large language model pedigree, it’s perhaps not surprising that Poem/1 may sometimes make up things (also called “hallucination” or “confabulation” in the AI field) to fulfill its task. The LLM that powers ChatGPT is always searching for the most likely next word in a sequence, and sometimes factuality comes second to fulfilling that mission.

Further down on the Kickstarter page, Webb provides a photo of his prototype Poem/1 where the screen reads, “As the clock strikes eleven forty two, / I rhyme the time, as I always do.” Just below, Webb warns, “Poem/1 fibs occasionally. I don’t believe it was actually 11.42 when this photo was taken. The AI hallucinated the time in order to make the poem work. What we do for art…”

In other clocks, the tendency to unreliably tell the time might be a fatal flaw. But judging by his humorous angle on the Kickstarter page, Webb apparently sees the clock as more of a fun art project than a precision timekeeping instrument. “Don’t rely on this clock in situations where timekeeping is vital,” Webb writes, “such as if you work in air traffic control or rocket launches or the finish line of athletics competitions.”

Poem/1 also sometimes takes poetic license with vocabulary to tell the time. During a humorous moment in the Kickstarter promotional video, Webb looks at his clock prototype and reads the rhyme, “A clock that defies all rhyme and reason / 4: 30 PM, a temporal teason.” Then he says, “I had to look ‘teason’ up. It doesn’t mean anything, so it’s a made-up word.”

Rhyming AI-powered clock sometimes lies about the time, makes up words Read More »