Lets go with the usual reminder: de-soldering / soldering Li-ion cells can be super dangerous. With a bit too much of heat it can fire or even explode...
They explain in the article what they consider a proper citation, an erroneous one and an hallucination, in the section "Defining Hallucitations". They also say than they have many false positives, mostly real papers who are not available online.
Thad said, i am also very curious of the result than their tool, would give to papers from the 2010's and before.
If you look at their examples in the "Defining Hallucitations" section, I'd say those could be 100% human errors. Shortening authors' names, leaving out authors, misattributing authors, misspelling or misremembering the paper title (or having an old preprint-title, as titles do change) are all things that I would fully expect to happen to anyone in any field were things get ever got published. Modern tools have made the citation process more comfortable, but if you go back to the old days, you'd probably find those kinds of errors everywhere. If you look at the full list of "hallucinations" they claim to have discovered, the only ones I'd not immediately blame on human screwups are the ones where a title and the authors got zero matches for existing papers/people. If you really want to do this kind of analysis correctly, you'd have to match the claim of the text and verify it with the cited article. Because I think it would be even more dangerous if you can get claims accepted by simply quoting an existing paper correctly, while completely ignoring its content (which would have worked here).
> Modern tools have made the citation process more comfortable,
That also makes some of those errors easier. A bad auto-import of paper metadata can silently screw up some of the publication details, and replacing an early preprint with the peer-reviewed article of record takes annoying manual intervention.
There are other issues. In January they claimed that a US health report contained "fabricated" and "AI generated" citations with the headline being a claim from a Cigna Group report. Their claim it's fabricated is based on nothing more than the URL now being a redirect of the type common in corporate website reorgs.
I did some checking and found the report does exist, but the citation is still not quite correct. Then I discovered someone is running some LLM based citation checker already, which already fact checked this claim and did a correct writeup that seems a lot better than what this GPTZero tool does.
The mistakes in the citation are the sort of mistake that could have been made by both a human or an AI, really. The visualization in the report is confusing and does contain the 73% number (rounded up), but it's unclear how to interpret the numbers because it's some sort of "vitality index" and not what you'd expect based on how it's introduced. At first glance I actually mis-interpreted it the same way the report does, so it's hard to view this is as clear evidence of AI misuse. Yet the GPTZero folks do make very strong claims based on nothing more than a URL scraper script.
I mean, if you’re able to take the citation, find the cited work, and definitively state ‘looks like they got the title wrong’ or ‘they attributed the paper to the wrong authors’, that doesn’t sound like what people usually mean when they say a ‘hallucinated’ citation. Work that is lazily or poorly cited but nonetheless attempts to cite real work is not the problem. Work which gives itself false authority by claiming to cite works that simply do not exist is the main concern surely?
>Work which gives itself false authority by claiming to cite works that simply do not exist is the main concern surely?
You'd think so, but apparently it isn't for these folks. On the other hand, saying "we've found 50 hallucinations in scientific papers" generates a lot more clicks than "we've found 50 common citation mistakes that people make all the time"
Not exactly true, they have hacked the end of the copyright for SteamBoat Willie, by adding a few second extract of it, as part of the actual "Walt Disney Animation Studios" actual logo.
They cannot sue anymore for copyright infringements, but they may do it the registered trademark way, by saying "It's in our logo !".
Don't confuse the license with project ownership. Flyway is owned by Red Gate Software and the community edition of Flyway is licensed under Apache 2.0. Apache Atlas is owned by the Apache Software Foundation AND licensed under Apache 2.0.
Ah, my fault. But that does not change the point I try to make: project ownership is equally important, if you cannot just fork and maintain some open source software yourself. It's something to include in risk calculations.
It look like easy to disable a rule : `SELECT pglinter.disable_rule('B006');`.
That said, i agree with you than some of the default rules may be bad. For example : B001 & T001 recommend primary keys, but it will effectively kill a TimescaleDB hypertable (primary keys are not recommended).
Don't you have energy cooperatives to avoid this in the Netherlands ? According to rescoop.eu i did find hetcooperatie.nl, energiesamen.nu & lochemenergie.org.
Even if you are instead in Newfoundland, maybe ask cecooperative.ca if there us a project to create one in your province.
2 x Nvidia Tesla P40 card for €660 is not a thing i consider to be "on a budget".
People can play with "small" or "medium" models less powerfull and cheaper cards. A Nvidia Geforce RTX 3060 card with "only" 12Gb VRAM can be found around €200-250 on second hand market (and they are around 300~350 new).
In my opinion, 48Gb of VRAM is overkill to call it "on a budget", for me this setup is nice but it's for semi-professional or professional usage.
There is of course a trade off to use medium or small models, but being "on a budget" is also to do trade off.
Yeesh, yeah, that was my first thought too - who’s budget??
less than $500 total feels more fitting as a ‘budget’ build - €1700 is more along the lines of ‘enthusiast’ or less charitably “I am rich enough to afford expensive hobbies”
If it’s your business and you expect to recoup the cost and write off the cost on your taxes, that’s one thing - but if you’re just looking to run a personal local LLM for funnies, that’s not an accessible price tag.
I suppose “or you could just buy a Mac” should have tipped me off though.
> What I do not understand in this case is why politics are involved?
This is a rural area with a lot of forest. The forestry service uses high concentrations of glyphosate dumped from helicopters to thin the forest.
The forestry service, and its use of glyphosphate is government, and with any government sponsored issue politics will make or break some politician's day.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter that tests sampled at points show glyphosphate levels are well under the point where adverse risks occurred in the labs.
It is possible the chemicals are inducing toxins in microflora that are novel which then cause these issues. Regenesis had such an episodal plotline with fungal spores.
It is also equally possible that the safety testing didn't properly conform to standards, where adverse effects are found at much lower levels than advertised.
The cluster areas according to some news outlets seem correlated to the aerial spraying which is why there's such a push to find out what's going on, while the politicians at higher levels don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Anything public ends up as political. Whether effort is spent on this or not is a question of money, and as always people have to advocate for their own health. Being alive is a political issue.
If it turns out to be some sort of public health issue such as use of toxins in industry, that's extremely political as well.
This just baseless conjecture, and even somewhat conspiracy-theory adjacent, but my best guess is one of the Irving families' companies is somehow involved here.
The Irving's, if you don't know, are one of the richest families in Canada, and effectively own the province of New Brunswick and run it like their own personal fiefdom. They are also heavily connected to both the Federal and Provincial conservative parties (And the Liberals too honestly), so I would assuage a guess that they had something to do with squashing the former investigation as they knew they were somehow culpable and used their cronies in the government to protect them from any potential liability.
Again, this is all just baseless conjecture, but it feels like at least a potentially reasonable explanation here, as it would be far from the first time billionaires used their wealth and political connections to kill an investigation into their own malfeasance.
reply