New supply chain attacks called "slopsquatting" in AI coding attempts to leverage AI models tendency to hallucinate non-existent package names.
Research indicates roughly 20% of the sampled Python and JavaScript code samples recommended packages didn't exist.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ai-hallucinated-code-dependencies-become-new-supply-chain-risk/ #slopsquatting #hallucinations #AI #coding #supplychain #python #javascript #cybersecurity
Shining a Light on AI Hallucinations
https://cacm.acm.org/news/shining-a-light-on-ai-hallucinations/
#AI #misinformation #hallucinations
"Despite billions in research investment, AI factuality remains largely unsolved. According to the report, even the most advanced models from OpenAI and Anthropic 'correctly answered less than half of the questions' on new benchmarks like SimpleQA, a collection of straightforward questions."
Looking north... Noticed some strange lights in the sky !?
#ufo ?
#northernlights ?
#hallucinations ?
In awe, I wonder...
"Why do language models sometimes hallucinate—that is, make up information? At a basic level, language model training incentivizes hallucination: models are always supposed to give a guess for the next word. Viewed this way, the major challenge is how to get models to not hallucinate. Models like Claude have relatively successful (though imperfect) anti-hallucination training; they will often refuse to answer a question if they don’t know the answer, rather than speculate. We wanted to understand how this works.
It turns out that, in Claude, refusal to answer is the default behavior: we find a circuit that is "on" by default and that causes the model to state that it has insufficient information to answer any given question. However, when the model is asked about something it knows well—say, the basketball player Michael Jordan—a competing feature representing "known entities" activates and inhibits this default circuit (see also this recent paper for related findings). This allows Claude to answer the question when it knows the answer. In contrast, when asked about an unknown entity ("Michael Batkin"), it declines to answer.
Sometimes, this sort of “misfire” of the “known answer” circuit happens naturally, without us intervening, resulting in a hallucination. In our paper, we show that such misfires can occur when Claude recognizes a name but doesn't know anything else about that person. In cases like this, the “known entity” feature might still activate, and then suppress the default "don't know" feature—in this case incorrectly. Once the model has decided that it needs to answer the question, it proceeds to confabulate: to generate a plausible—but unfortunately untrue—response."
https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model
#AI #GenerativeAI #LLMs #Chatbots #Anthropic #Claude #Hallucinations
"Anthropic's research found that artificially increasing the neurons' weights in the "known answer" feature could force Claude to confidently hallucinate information about completely made-up athletes like "Michael Batkin." That kind of result leads the researchers to suggest that "at least some" of Claude's hallucinations are related to a "misfire" of the circuit inhibiting that "can't answer" pathway—that is, situations where the "known entity" feature (or others like it) is activated even when the token isn't actually well-represented in the training data.
Unfortunately, Claude's modeling of what it knows and doesn't know isn't always particularly fine-grained or cut and dried. In another example, researchers note that asking Claude to name a paper written by AI researcher Andrej Karpathy causes the model to confabulate the plausible-sounding but completely made-up paper title "ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks." Asking the same question about Anthropic mathematician Josh Batson, on the other hand, causes Claude to respond that it "cannot confidently name a specific paper... without verifying the information.""
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/why-do-llms-make-stuff-up-new-research-peers-under-the-hood/
tbh, it's hella work to refactor in the /same/ language.
As long as #AI continues to routinely make up wrong answers (cutely referred to as #hallucinations because #lies involve intention, which AI lacks) via autocomplete, it is both foolish and irresponsible to use it for any seroius work.
It's not even cost-effective, as 40 hours of AI is orders of magnitude more costly than 40 hours of a team of developers.