While I was an analyst in Troy, NY, there was probably a case of "self staged crime" ~once a year. One example, a person we believe shot himself to argue to stay in local county lockup (for his doctor) instead of going to state.

I wrote a book on AI engineering with the LLM APIs. I am begging you to read and understand it, because I need to hire more people with these skills! crimede-coder.com/store/

Can see this report at veruscite.com/share/a2NXY4aV…, 16 hallucinations that point to DOIs to other papers (and the papers as cited do not exist).

One of the recent AI hallucinations I have come across is DOIs that point to totally different papers. I honestly don't know if these are author or editor induced. If editor, it just means the journals are publishing papers that *they know* have a pretty gross amount of errors.

I tried to Manski bound the reasonable synth space, github.com/apwheele/SynthBou…. It is wide in those examples but honestly not as hopeless as I thought the bounds would be.

Hall of Hallucinations is up to 142 papers. Sign up, contribute a few of your own. veruscite.com/hallucinations

Can see the post at veruscite.com/blog/veruscite… I suggests a human review after my tool has flagged. Which is of course is so much faster than going through citations yourself one by one.

New VerusCite blog post, my false positive rate is under 1% in my benchmark and likely outside of it. I go through my Grok Bot scan yesterday to show an out of sample example. Of the 200+ citations scanned, my tool flagged 10. Only one is potentially a false positive.

Daniel vs Alexander is a big difference, but again no way to know for certain unless the author admits it (which they never will). If you would like to see additional examples of author hallucinations, one of my scans for the day found a paper with 4 examples, veruscite.com/share/Z_4zMYwH…. Those are more egregious but better examples of hallucinations. A not uncommon pattern is to get the first author right (like the first example) but all the secondary authors are wrong. A few of the examples in that paper though just 100% of the authors are wrong.

I will never have a smoking gun. The design philosophy behind when to identify a hallucination is a whole cloth made up word -- a name, a title, a journal, etc. Minor errors (as you can see in the linked report), like a year off, a misspelling, etc. will not be flagged as hallucination. In my public benchmark, I have a false positive rate of under 1%, github.com/apwheele/veruscit…, so I do suggest humans to review anything I flag after the fact. And of course identifying minor errors is useful for copy-editors as well.

My tool identifies just that citation as hallucinated FYI and no others, veruscite.com/share/vOGgnMBQ…

There are some legacy systems that are terrifying and I have no clue how they still manage to function (e.g. email). I am going to add 811 to that list. Got an email from North Carolina that has a parcel map that is at least over 10+ years old. It does work fast and gets the various companies out, but gosh that must be a tangled web to work on as a developer. (And the utilities must drop a significant amount of labor cost for something that should not be that hard.)

I asked grok comparing to lotto like powerball. To reach that volume is closer to the monthly level for some of the bigger states. Given you can bet for pennies on these ridiculous sequences and do it for so many things I imagine it is a better kick though for gamblers.

Damien Charlotin's AI hallucination tracker in court cases has flattened. Possibly via not collecting as many, but also just as likely the models are getting better. (I am skeptical individuals are using them more effectively!)

Can see the report at veruscite.com/share/fe4oxn8C…

Hallucination of the day, there is basically a cottage industry of junk review articles now.

Holy moly guys, had no idea that level of volume was happening.

I have never used these, is this just a UI pattern? Like they just give a pop-up "Win 10 million dollars" for these random events coinciding. (Which does not go against your point, but just genuinely curious.) Or are are people going in and making their own combinations?