> I wish there was a name for this situation. It’s almost like a pseudo-language where it has the correct form and presentation but is missing critical components.

Bullshit?

▲

davidgh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I understand the sentiment, but not quite what I’m thinking. It’s not that the AI is necessarily wrong, it’s more like, it replaces clarity with rich but unhelpful text. Maybe like candy. Full of flavor, texture and color but lacking the nutrients.

	▲	cryzinger an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The way I like to describe it is that it feels slippery, like it's been polished down to oblivion and my eyes slide right off of it. There's no place to find a mental foothold, and if you zoom in there aren't any details. But I also like your candy analogy because I think it's spot-on for how LLM text superficially looks informational/nutritious, even though it's actually just junk.

▲

datsci_est_2015 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No no no. Harry Frankfurt wrote at length the difference between liars (who care about the truth, and twist it) and bullshitters (who don’t care about the truth, but just the way they’re received).

This is some third category of untruth. Almost more sinister than the other two altogether.

	▲	kaffekaka an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"A third category of untruth" is a great expression, thank you.
	▲	pitched 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think, they don’t care about truth at all, just whether the reviewer rates it highly. Otherwise, it would be deleted after that round of training. It values test-taking ability over critical thinking. My two favourite words for this are “conditioned” and “catechized” where the latter is a bit more on the nose but way more obscure.