\n
![](\"https:\/\/readwrite.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/AI-hallucinations-900x506.webp\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Generative AI can have \u201challucinations\u201d when it doesn\u2019t know the answer to a question; here\u2019s how to spot it.<\/p>\n
Researchers from the University of Oxford have devised a new method to help users work out when generative AI could be \u201challucinating.\u201d This comes about when an AI system is posed a query that it doesn\u2019t know the answer to, causing it to make up an incorrect answer.<\/p>\n
Luckily, there are tips to both spot this when it\u2019s happening and prevent it from happening altogether.<\/p>\n
A new study by the team at the University of Oxford has produced a statistical model that can identify when questions asked of generative AI chatbots were most likely to produce an incorrect answer.<\/p>\n
This is a real concern for generative AI models, as the advanced nature of how they communicate means they can pass off false information as fact. That was highlighted when ChatGPT went rogue with false answers back in February<\/a>.<\/p>\n With more and more people from all walks of life turning to AI tools to help them with school, work, and daily life, AI experts like those involved in this study are calling for clearer ways for people to tell when AI is making up responses, especially when related to serious topics like healthcare and the law.<\/p>\n The researchers at the University of Oxford claim that their research can tell the difference between when a model is correct or just making something up.<\/p>\n \u201cLLMs are highly capable of saying the same thing in many different ways, which can make it difficult to tell when they are certain about an answer and when they are literally just making something up,\u201d said study author Dr Sebastian Farquhar while speaking to the Evening Standard<\/a>. \u201cWith previous approaches, it wasn\u2019t possible to tell the difference between a model being uncertain about what to say versus being uncertain about how to say it. But our new method overcomes this.\u201d<\/p>\n However, there is of course still more work to do on ironing out the errors AI models can make.<\/p>\n \u201cSemantic uncertainty helps with specific reliability problems, but this is only part of the story,\u201d he added. \u201cIf an LLM makes consistent mistakes, this new method won\u2019t catch that. The most dangerous failures of AI come when a system does something bad but is confident and systematic.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is still a lot of work to do.\u201d<\/p>\n